Home | Community | Message Board


Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Classified
THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS
    #4631331 - 09/07/05 08:38 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)



Quote:

In celebration of the working person's holiday, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has announced the Bush Administration's plan to end the 60-year-old law which requires employers to pay time-and-a-half for overtime.

I'm sure you already knew that -- if you happened to have run across page 15,576 of last year's Federal Register.

According to the Register, where the Bush Administration likes to place its little gifts to major campaign donors, 2.7 million workers will lose their overtime pay for a "benefit" of $1.53 billion. I put "benefit" in quotes because, in the official cost-benefit analysis issued by Bush's Labor Department, the amount employers will now be able to slice out of workers' pockets is tallied on the plus side of the rules change.

President Bush announced in his convention acceptance speech this week that he was changing overtime rules to give workers "comp time" off instead of pay. He forgot to mention that a couple of days before, on August 23, his Labor Department had already put in half the plan -- eliminating overtime pay for millions -- while failing to put into the regs one word about comp time. In the pre-September 11 days, we used to call that, "lying."

Nevertheless, workers getting their pay snipped shouldn't complain, because they will all be receiving promotions. These employees will be re-classified as managers exempt from the law. The change is promoted by the National Council of Chain Restaurants. You've met these 'managers' - they're the ones in the beanies and aprons whose management decisions are, "Hold the lettuce on that."



NO OVERTIME IN BAGHDAD

My favorite of Chao's little amendments would re-classify as "exempt professionals" anyone who learned their skill in the military. In other words, thousands of veterans will now lose overtime pay. I just can't understand why Bush didn't announce that one when he landed on the aircraft carrier.

Now I should say, according to Chao's press office, the changes will actually extend overtime benefits to 1.3 million burger flippin' managers. How does that square with the billion dollar "benefit" to business owners? Simple: The Chao hounds at the Labor Department suggest that employers CUT WAGES so that, added to the new "overtime" pay, the employees won't actually take home a dime more.



A snippet of Greg Palast's article.

You can read the rest at http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=267&row=1


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: bukkake]
    #4631370 - 09/07/05 08:50 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

HEY ELAINE...FUCK YOU CUNT!


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 6 days
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: daimyo]
    #4631442 - 09/07/05 09:04 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Shut up and flip my burger loser.

Does this asshole (Palast) ever provide a link? Just asking is all. 'Cause all the Right-wing loons I read provide lots and lots. Moonbats seem bereft of links. Just an observation.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Classified
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4631449 - 09/07/05 09:06 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Further along the article, he quotes page 15,576 of the Federal Register, sir.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: bukkake]
    #4631548 - 09/07/05 09:22 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Weird..

He references the section proposing rules for milk marketing under the dept. of agriculture. (If you have ritalin, now is the time to pop em).

Im not sure about pay cuts but it will tell you all about which milk is reserved for class IV manufacturing.

Federal Register: March 25, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 58) (ed. heh, 69)

[[Page 15576]]

daily operating fluctuations among distributing plants (operating
reserves) and seasonal fluctuations (seasonal reserves). According to
the witness, during periods of abundant milk supply in the Northeast
marketing area, such reserve milk is used for Class IV manufacturing
purposes, specifically for the manufacture of nonfat dry milk (NFDM).
According to the RCBS witness, the study suggests that seasonal
variations in the demand for fluid milk cause variations in the supply
of milk that would otherwise be used in manufacturing. As a result,
milk available for the manufacturing of NFDM fluctuates inversely with
the milk supplies needed to meet fluid milk demand, the witness noted.
The witness said that as demand for milk for fluid use increases,
supplies of milk for manufacturing tend to decline. According to the
witness, changes in Class I (fluid) demand change the amount of unused
butter-powder plant capacity and that such unused capacity has
associated costs.
The RCBS witness explained that the balancing study was conducted
using two different scenarios. The witness said the first scenario
assumes an operating reserve of milk needed to balance the regions'
needs at 10 percent of total fluid demand. The second scenario assumes,
according to the witness, an operating reserve of 20 percent. The
witness testified that operating costs were compared under these two
differing scenarios while other factors were held constant. The witness
noted that while the study focuses on estimating costs and changes in
estimated costs, the study did not address methods by which to recover
or offset costs typically associated with balancing services and
operations. The witness indicated that cost recovery methods might
include some form of marketwide service payments formalized under the
term of a milk marketing order, ``give-up'' charges (a charge by a
supplier for making milk available, for example, to a distributing
plant), balancing or diversion fees (a charge for accepting milk at a
balancing facility when not needed by a Class I bottler), ``over-
order'' premiums (a price charged for milk above those minimum prices
set under the terms of a milk marketing order), or by pricing formulae
included in the classified prices established under a milk marketing
order.
A witness for Dairylea, a farmer-owned agricultural marketing and
service organization, testified in support of Proposal 7. The witness
described the Northeast marketing area as a milk ``megamarket''
characterized by high population and milk production density that
requires marketwide service payments for balancing the market's fluid
needs. The witness asserted that the Class I needs of the Northeast
market are so large and unique among Federal milk orders that without
compensation for the costs incurred for balancing, such activities
might not otherwise be provided. The witness asserted that there is no
other viable market mechanism through which excess milk supplies can be
adequately disposed of other than through the butter-powder balancing
facilities of the region's six largest cooperative handlers. The
witness did note, however, that all manufacturing handlers operating in
the Northeast marketing area also perform balancing functions by simply
procuring milk from the area's producers.
The Dairylea witness characterized the Northeast as a unique milk-
producing region because nearly 25 percent of farmers supplying the
market are independent producers and not members of cooperatives. The
witness characterized the Northeast's independent producers as largely
serving the needs of Class I handlers and as generally not involved in
providing balancing facilities and services for the market.
Additionally, the witness testified that the marketing area contains
nearly 40 percent of all dairy farmer cooperatives in the United
States. In comparing outlets for milk, the witness testified that the
Northeast marketing area is represented by 32 proprietary handlers and
259 milk plants.
The witness for Dairylea was of the opinion that the unique
characteristics and size of the marketing area together with the sheer
volume of milk required to supply the fluid needs of the marketing area
make it imperative that marketwide service payments be provided to
compensate the largest cooperative handlers for the costs that they
incur for balancing the market. According to the witness, without
cooperatives performing this service, some milk production in the
marketing area would not clear the market. The witness did note that
some milk produced within the boundaries of the Northeast marketing
area is not pooled on the order because it is delivered south to other
marketing areas where it receives a higher blend price. The witness
similarly acknowledged that milk produced west of the marketing area is
delivered to the Northeast marketing area butter-powder plants because
being pooled on the Northeast order often commands a higher blend
price.
The Dairylea witness also acknowledged that other plants located
within the Northeast marketing area (some 184 nonpool plants, many of
which are proprietary) also perform significant balancing functions.
While the witness was of the opinion that no single nonpool plant could
individually provide significant market balancing services, taken as a
whole, these plants do provide and perform balancing functions.
The Dairylea witness testified that the members of ADCNE had
advanced a conceptually similar marketwide service payment proposal for
balancing during the Federal milk order reform effort. The witness
testified that Federal order reform provided public debate and analysis
on the need for a marketwide service payment for balancing. The witness
explained that USDA rejected that marketwide service payment proposal
in the reform's recommended decision of 1998 and in its final decision
in 1999 because the proposed balancing credit level sought had not been
adequately explained.
A second ADCNE witness, representing Agrimark, testified that the
Food Security Act of 1985 (commonly referred to as the 1985 Farm Bill)
provided authority for Federal milk marketing orders to allow handlers
to collect for services rendered that are of benefit to all the
market's participants. The witness asserted that the disposal of
surplus milk (milk not needed for fluid use) and the procurement of
supplemental milk supplies for fluid handlers are specifically
identified in the provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill as being of
marketwide benefit. The Agrimark witness also asserted that payments
for reimbursing handlers who provide services of marketwide benefit may
be made from the total sums payable by all handlers for milk--the costs
are paid from the total value of milk pooled before the computation of
the blend price.
In the opinion of the Agrimark witness, such payments would be made
on a uniform basis by all pool participants and thereby all would
equitably share in the cost associated with balancing. According to the
witness, because independent producers do not operate balancing
facilities or perform balancing functions, they have avoided the burden
of incurring balancing costs while receiving the benefit of the blend
price.
Testimony of the Agrimark witness reinforced the opinion of the
Dairylea witness that cooperatives perform the bulk of market balancing
functions in the Northeast marketing area throughout the year. As an
example, the witness... (end of page)


Edited by Catalysis (09/07/05 09:30 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 6 days
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: Catalysis]
    #4631579 - 09/07/05 09:28 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

MORE MILK, DAMMIT, YOU SLACKER BITCHES.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 months, 20 days
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: bukkake]
    #4631625 - 09/07/05 09:35 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

If this is real, it is absolute horseshit.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: bukkake]
    #4631633 - 09/07/05 09:36 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Not only that , Bush took away their lunches, wants to kick them in the street, take away their medicine, and make them eat dog food with their elderly parents that Bush is also purposefully starving!


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: Redstorm]
    #4631637 - 09/07/05 09:37 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

You can thank the National Records and Archives Administration. (and my mad searching skillz pwn you all)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 6 days
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: Catalysis]
    #4631653 - 09/07/05 09:39 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Catalysis said:
You can thank the National Records and Archives Administration.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html




Fabulous job my friend


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Classified
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: Catalysis]
    #4631692 - 09/07/05 09:46 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Source?

Mine: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/proposed/2003033101.htm

From '03. You can also google any of those quotes.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: bukkake]
    #4631820 - 09/07/05 10:22 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Heh, I didn't realize that article was from 2 years ago.

Anyways the article you site proposes an INCREASE in the salary level needed to be exempt from overtime pay as dictated in the 1975 regulation.

Quote:

Given the range of options available to an employer confronted
with paying overtime to employees previously treated as exempt, the
actual payroll cost impact for individual employers could range from
near zero to up to the maximum cost impacts estimated in the
Department's PRIA.




If you actually read your article, they are proposing nearly DOUBLING the minimum required for exemption from overtime pay.

Quote:

Moreover, while the existing salary tests ($155, $170, and $250 per
week) still reflect the interim 1975 rates, a full-time minimum wage
worker today earns $206 per week for a 40-hour work week. Consequently,
the existing salary tests no longer provide employees or employers any
help in distinguishing between bona fide executive, administrative, and
professional employees and those who should not be considered for
exemption. Moreover, the outdated salary tests and complex duties tests
in the current regulation cause employees to be erroneously
misclassified as exempt and thus not paid properly.




They propose increasing the minimum for exemption from $250 to $475. I hope this is not the article being referenced as an attempt to eliminate overtime because it is the exact opposite.

Shit, if this passes I think I may actually be able to collect overtime.


Edited by Catalysis (09/07/05 10:26 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Classified
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: Catalysis]
    #4631854 - 09/07/05 10:33 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Another source.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/photos/overtimereport.pdf

I am having diffuculty finding a precise source on an official government website, but I am very interested in your source and am always open to any contradictions to articles or things I may post. Right now I just assume I got ahold of a wrong source, dated '03 which contradicts a reference from the '04 Federal Register.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecb9fl
Senior ChildMolestationExpert
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Loc: florida
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: Catalysis]
    #4631887 - 09/07/05 10:40 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/fact_exemption.htm

Quote:

Fact Sheet #17A: Exemption for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

This fact sheet provides general information on the exemption from minimum wage and overtime pay provided by Section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act as defined by Regulations, 29 CFR Part 541.

The FLSA requires that most employees in the United States be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek.

However, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) also exempt certain computer employees. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week. Job titles do not determine exempt status. In order for an exemption to apply, an employee?s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the Department?s regulations.




Quote:

Computer Employee Exemption

To qualify for the computer employee exemption, the following tests must be met:

* The employee must be compensated either on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour;
* The employee must be employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field performing the duties described below;
* The employee?s primary duty must consist of:

1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;

2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;

3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or

4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.




$455/week for a computer programmer is shit. If a programmer makes at least $455/week the company doesn't have to pay him overtime. I love how government always tries to attach feel good names to legislation.


--------------------
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -Andre Gide

"Generosity is nothing else than a craze to possess. All which I abandon, all which I give, I enjoy in a higher manner through the fact that I give it away. To give is to enjoy possessively the object which one gives."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: cb9fl]
    #4631928 - 09/07/05 10:58 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


$455/week for a computer programmer is shit. If a programmer makes at least $455/week the company doesn't have to pay him overtime. I love how government always tries to attach feel good names to legislation.




Yeah but a computer programmer making $455 a week is already legally exempt from receiving overtime. Currently a computer programmer making over $170 a week is legally exempt from overtime according to the 1975 standard. Of course, no businesses follow this as it is just not good business practice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecb9fl
Senior ChildMolestationExpert
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Loc: florida
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: Catalysis]
    #4631939 - 09/07/05 11:01 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

That law is in effect.


--------------------
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -Andre Gide

"Generosity is nothing else than a craze to possess. All which I abandon, all which I give, I enjoy in a higher manner through the fact that I give it away. To give is to enjoy possessively the object which one gives."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY FROM VETERANS [Re: cb9fl]
    #4631976 - 09/07/05 11:11 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

haha, O.  I had a feeling this was a complete waste of time.  Hell, I could be making overtime right now but instead im posting on the shroomery.  :crazy:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* New York cops hate Iraq war veterans? paulie_walnuts1 660 10 10/26/08 01:34 PM
by Hotnuts
* Don?t Think the Bush Campaign Stole This Election? Think Again ekomstop 4,916 10 11/06/04 10:23 AM
by ekomstop
* Republicans cut veterans' benefits EchoVortex 575 7 04/15/03 03:52 PM
by Azmodeus
* Bush Admin: Plan to cut Veterans Healthcare in two years. The_Red_Crayon 1,351 12 02/25/07 10:07 AM
by zappaisgod
* Milking the Cow - Taxation and Secession in Vermont afoaf 709 7 03/04/04 04:37 PM
by zappaisgod
* Labor Unions Anonymous 435 5 11/10/03 09:47 PM
by PsiloKitten
* Halliburton acquiring asian poor for labor at slave wages
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
kilgore_trout 5,257 125 10/16/05 09:52 PM
by kilgore_trout
* roll call... do libertarians support child labor?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Anonymous 5,911 126 08/27/04 12:11 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
590 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.113 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.