The final nail was long before this. I'm just pointing out the siliness spouted by many that this man is some sort of centrist.
The area that this will effect the most is retail. Working in retail management as a salaried assistant manager and even as a small unit(dollar stores) store manager is a $35-45k, 45-60hr/wk salaried position. And there is no OT currently for working that 60hr work week. With this law they either pay the OT or raise budgets to accomodate more hourly employees, which is the cheapest route. Either way, payroll goes up and guess who gets to pay for the increased payroll and it isn't the retailers.
The French have instituted similar laws and what happens is no one hires people full time anymore. Many entry level jobs that could lead to very nice long term livings are in the low $40s and high $30s. God forbid someone work a couple of extra hours to get ahead in life.
I'm not arguing for the OT pay. Trust me, I work in retail and have a well paying career from it. I started at that level and worked many extra hours to get where I am and most people I work with have done the same. Hell, I still do. My problem is that this is not just going to increase payrolls, it's going to create inflation in the retail sector. It will affect everyone, directly or indirectly. Hell some retailers actually schedule their salaried employees for more than 40hrs a week. I can see them cutting the hours and the pay off those employees.
How will this effect football supplements. I think the state is the biggest offender on pay but then again I'm a grown ass man and should be able to enter any contact for employment that I agree to
I don't necessarily see this as a problem. Too many people bust their asses for businesses, and get no real payback from it, other than an occasional good job and a plaque. People want to [itch bay] about this, yet the CEOs of companies get huge bonuses (7 figures or more), along with other officers in the company, but its OK to shit on the little people? The crazy part about those huge bonuses, if it wasn't for the little people, they wouldn't receive those bonuses. I think this is needed, because if a $600/wk salary employee makes almost as much as a $8/hr employee at 60 hours a week, that's pretty screwed up, IMO. Why on earth would you want more responsibility just to almost make the same as someone making $8/hr for the same amount of hours? Doesn't really make people want to move up.
Coaches are finally going to make more than .25/hr. If this positively effects coaching, I'm rethinking my retirement from coaching after this last season....
Won't this added cost ultimately and simply result in more jobs being consolidated, and the newly available positions just going away, so to make up for that added expense? Is there any scenario in which this new rule creates more jobs? I'm all for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work - but every time I see the government "helping" folks like this, I can't help but notice that people start losing jobs, soon thereafter. Of course, my opinion is based on pure anecdotal evidence, from my own narrow field of view, and I could easily be wrong. But that's how it seems.
1. Change jobs. 2. Problem solved. And while I'm not going to argue for the earned merit of every single bonus of any CEO, if you think that those bonuses are so easily earned....why not just go earn them, yourself? Sounds to me like they just hand those fat checks out to just about anyone, from your post.
Al it's going to do is bust up one position into 2 or 3. It's not going to have the intended consequences.
It seems like all they are doing is raising the salary threshold, something that hasn't been done in 40 years, and they are basically adjusting it for inflation over that time. This is not a new policy, but a long overdue updating of a very old policy. And it is all well and good to say "get a new job", but new, well paying jobs are getting harder and harder to find, particularly if you are over a certain age (and this is purely anecdotal, as I watch my wife's company sending good white collar jobs either over seas to India or starting to use computers to do the job). And with automation looming for even white collar jobs, that is just going to get harder to justify.
The link stated that certain jobs, which included teaching, aren't covered under this change so does this mean that would cover coaching as well?
There's over five million jobs that can't be filled. It may be inconvenient and with hardships, but it isn't getting harder to find jobs.
Are they well paying, career jobs? Can I, as a nearly 50 year old man, do them? Or would I have to apprentice for 3 years as a welder to get one? I honestly do not know, and do not watch the job market, so these are sincere questions.
I agree, and the automation of white collar jobs has already begun. I understand we've been in a constant state of automation for many years, with the workforce evolving accordingly. However, this current wave is a bit different in its scope. New roles will be created but I believe the overall workforce demand shrinks. Of course there are also those who claim we're heading for a workforce shortage due to the exit of baby boomers, which will likely drive up compensation for qualified working age people. Maybe the two balance out.
Most are really well paying and don't require tons of training and school. Basically Mike Rowes organizations work is trying to bring light and fill them. A lot of it is due to public schools push to put every student in college and treating trade jobs like they're bad or undesirable
