Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

GSD, you do realise that if there wasn't laws protecting her lunchtime, she would've been forced to work through it without getting payed for it?

Furthermore, the issue here is, like others have said before, not that she worked through her lunch. The issue is that the company hired her at 40 hours yet demanded more than 40 hours of work. Does that seem reasonable to you?

[NobodyPro]

Lack of a report user button.
Engagement cards for all!

Edit: On the profile, not the post .

[Sheb]

Also, realizing some regulations are stupid doesn't make you a conservative. Liberal don't want regulation to regulate the curvature of cucumber (The EU does, but that's another issue).

The issue is what kind of regulation is acceptable. Having to pay thousands of dollars to braid hair is ridiculous, and probably has more to do with hair braiders lobbying to prevent people from joining the profession than with Liberalism or Conservatism.

But legislation preventing people from doing overtime without being paid? Entirely logic. And saying she was fired because of the legislation is stupid. She was fired for not hiding the fact that she was forced to break it.

It's like a bank robber shooting witnesses not to get caught, and you arguing that they died because bank robbing is illegal. Yes, if robbing banks was legal the robber would have no incentive to make sure there are no witnesses, but it's till totally beside the point. (Sorry, couldn't think of a less hyperbolic exemple.)

[GlyphGryph]

GSD, a few things:

I'm not saying employees shouldn't get lunch hours. I'm saying that by making lunch hours a law, unintended consequences result.

There is no law guaranteeing lunch hours. There's simply a law saying a company can make you work without compensating you for the work - that they can't threaten you into free labour.

And you do realize licensing issues like barbering have nothing to do with the conservative/liberal divide, right? It's protectionism, plain and simple, and that sort of thing has bipartisan support. I've never seen a Conservative politician that actually supported reduced regulation - they just want to shift it around so it benefits their backers and hurts someone else. And thinking that many regulations are bad is in no way "conservative" - that, again, gets bipartisan support, but this time among the general population rather the politicians.

I know a lot of barbers - conservative as fuck, but strong supporters of those sort of licenses and regulations. Why? Because it makes things easier for them. Welcome to humanity!

[G-Flex]

There is no law guaranteeing lunch hours.

There are certainly federal regulations.

[GlyphGryph]

It doesn't require you to give your employees meal periods, it requires you to pay your employees for them if they work during them.

[Truean]

It doesn't require you to give your employees meal periods, it requires you to pay your employees for them if they work during them.

Yup, GlyphGryph is right. Look, the problem was that they'd squeeze free labor out of you during lunch breaks, or any breaks and you'd work a 12 hour day minimum. Needless to say, we had a lot of people die from exhaustion or be worn out and fall into the vat of molten steel.... It was sort of problematic.

Moreover, do you realize the specific regulation from CFR you cited is actually in the employer's favor? The whole thing is about how many hours you worked a week as the employee and how to determine that. Well, as long as you give them an actual lunch break and don't force the employee to work on it, then that time doesn't count towards overtime calculation. Otherwise it would and you'd have to pay more overtime as employer. The only catch being you actually have to freaking let them eat and not work, or else it does count.

This stuff has been around since the 1930s. Employers should know it. If they don't then they should really hire a lawyer for their business or something. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The rule says, "lunch breaks don't count towards hours for overtime, as long as they're real and you don't work during them." <---- This is completely in favor of employer, because otherwise it's more money out of their pocket.

I really think if people understood how regulation and the making of regulation worked, then they could be rather in favor of it and yes, they could actively participate in the making of it, just like large interest groups do. Unfortunately, nobody seems to wanna learn any of this or pay someone who knows.

Finally, there simply will always be regulation, even and especially if you get rid of government regulation. Companies will happily make their own regulations and they will all, absolutely, favor them only, while screwing you over as a rule.

It isn't a question of "have less regulation," that isn't an option no matter who doesn't like it. Rather, it is a question of who makes said regulation, how they make it and who benefits/loses from it.

_______________________________________________________________
In other news:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/impressed-delighted-warren-buffett-matches-204656439.html Finally, for all the talk of not liking the national debt, no one is suggesting the obvious answer: pay some of it down....

Also this: http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/florida-man-guilty-dui-manslaughter-sues-victim-130753893--abc-news.html

All you need to know is the guy's lawyer is also his sister. Yeah, its probably 80% frivolous, but I'm thinking the only reason she's doing this is family desperation. Does that excuse it? No. Does it explain it? Yes. They're different. Moreover, the only possible legit thing about this would be "comparative or contributory negligence." That's like saying I'm 90% at fault for the accident and you're 10% at fault. So, I should only pay you 90% of the damages, due to you being 10% at fault. Even if that does apply here, it shouldn't be a separate lawsuit. It should be raised as a defense to the dead victim's family suing the drunk driver.

I've dome something similar to this where the other person is the car accident was speeding and not wearing their required prescription glasses. My client unquestioningly caused the accident, but the other guy going too fast and not being able to see straight definitely contributed to it.

Summary, the attorney's doing this cause its her brother, she's procedurally wrong, because it's a defense rather than a separate lawsuit. The media has blown this way out of proportion.

[FearfulJesuit]

Times like these will either break a man, or they will radicalise him. And amazingly, both seem to be happening to me.

I got a huge amount of flack today for saying that while I would never fight and die for my country, I would unquestionably fight and die that our children might know no nationalism and no borders.

[Levi]

Heh, I like Warren Buffett.  Good on him.

[Tilla]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/137535543.html

Going way back to the origins of this thread, sounds like there's some success in bringing down Walker's government. Almost as many signatures for the recall as total voters who put the man in office - and twice what was needed to force the recall campaign.

[Heron TSG]

The Imperial Walker, brought down by a million snowspeeders. Glorious. I just hope it works!

[Truean]

Times like these will either break a man, or they will radicalise him. And amazingly, both seem to be happening to me.

I got a huge amount of flack today for saying that while I would never fight and die for my country, I would unquestionably fight and die that our children might know no nationalism and no borders.

Yeah, honestly you're going to get all kinds of flack now no matter what you believe. This is what happens when you've got an incredibly inflammatory country like ours. I try not to talk about politics and when I have to I stick to the process of how to make it work operationally.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/137535543.html

Going way back to the origins of this thread, sounds like there's some success in bringing down Walker's government. Almost as many signatures for the recall as total voters who put the man in office - and twice what was needed to force the recall campaign.

Thank you for sharing that. I really hope he gets recalled. Going along with the rest of this post, there doesn't seem to be a middle in this country anymore and that's sad. Taking an extremist like Walker down a notch will hopefully remedy that. The answer shouldn't be paying public workers less it should be paying private workers more so they can live decently.

[Heron TSG]

It's really quite strange, what we have. We have politicians who gravitate towards the middle right before an election before violently bouncing off of each other and back to the extremes. Mitt Romney is a classic example: he's trying his damnedest to avoid alienating anyone, but all indications about his past show that he's actually pretty conservative. It's the first time I've actually heard of a presidential candidate come under fire from one party for being too liberal while the other calls him too conservative.

Politics.

[GSD]

Yeah it's me again.

"The answer shouldn't be paying public workers less it should be paying private workers more so they can live decently."

If the problem is massive government debt, your solution isn't to reduce government spending, but to make the private sector spend more? That still leaves the problem of massive government over-spending unsolved.

[kaijyuu]

We could, of course, bump taxes up to a reasonable level. 50% or so.


The problem with cutting down on government spending is we've already cut down on a ton of stuff. All that's left is things that are dearly important to someone (and the occasional wacky thing like a bridge to nowhere, but those are rare). I'd love to axe 90% of the military, which would save a ton of money, but there are plenty who would disagree with me about it being an unnecessary expense. Similarly, there are those out there who'd love to axe stuff I think extremely necessary: stuff like welfare.

People whine about government excess but don't realize it's not "excess" in some people's minds. Trying to axe it is going to cause controversy, which will just prevent or heavily hinder the axing thereof, and we've spent a ton of money doing almost squat.