Executive order - overtime pay - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Executive order - overtime pay

  1. #21
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post

    It is in this situation more about how I think forcing companies to pay over time to salary workers is a horrible idea than it was done by EO, however the fact that it was done by EO just adds to the situation. There are many, many things that contribute to why I think Pres. Obama is a poor president. This is just a drop in an already full bucket.
    Ohhh, okay. So its really that you don't like the policy (which is a mere raise of an already existing limit)...and you particularly don't like policies that you disagree with being handed out via Executive Order.

    But other rather controversial executive orders might be fine, if you agreed with them? (I'm thinking something like capping stem cell research or something)

    If you had just said that you disagreed with this policy, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But it was the non-elaborated "worst president ever" comment thrown in here...with no other argument given...followed by a dictator/far-reaching rebuttal that really irks me.

    I really dislike the portrayal of Obama issuing out an exectuive order as something shocking and atrocious. Its hypocritical and shouldn't be commented on unless you can really support it with facts, which would require pointing out how judiciously previous presidents issued all of their EO's.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 03-17-2014 at 10:36 AM.
    mommydearest likes this.

  2. #22
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,356

    Default

    As for the actual policy...i actually had no idea that a limit like this existed.

    Was it mentioned how the actual limit numbers were or are determined? THe concept is a bit fascinating to me. Everyone who works overtime is working their butts off....how does one determine what type of job is worthy of pay vs working overtime for free?

    If the point is "They are working and hard and deserve to get paid for working extra hard" how does that only apply to a certain salary level?

    I'm not saying i can't be convince that this is a sound policy to begin with, but i really need to understand it more.

    My guess is if it does anything, it would simply prevent a mcdonald's supervisor fromm getting a lot of OT hours. One might say "Well thats great! Then they aren't being abused and overwrorked" But then i would ask why should a McDonald's supervisor not be overworked, but its okay for a computer programmer to be overworked?


    I don't know...i need to think about this more. I think any cutoff based on salary will feel rather arbitrary to me unless someone shows me how its not. I don't like "abritrary-ness" lol
    Last edited by KimPossible; 03-17-2014 at 10:45 AM.
    Emma 08/31/01
    Aodhan 07/24/03
    Lillian 03/04/05
    Nathalie 07/01/07
    Cecilia Marie 1/10/10


    Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography

  3. #23
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Ohhh, okay. So its really that you don't like the policy (which is a mere raise of an already existing limit)...and you particularly don't like policies that you disagree with being handed out via Executive Order.

    But other rather controversial executive orders might be fine, if you agreed with them? (I'm thinking something like capping stem cell research or something)

    If you had just said that you disagreed with this policy, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But it was the non-elaborated "worst president ever" comment thrown in here...with no other argument given...followed by a dictator/far-reaching rebuttal that really irks me.

    I really dislike the portrayal of Obama issuing out an exectuive order as something shocking and atrocious. Its hypocritical and shouldn't be commented on unless you can really support it with facts, which would require pointing out how judiciously previous presidents issued all of their EO's.
    Overall I am not in support of EO for anything other than procedural issues. Presidents should not be able to make laws. It does not matter to me that all Presidents do it, I still think it is wrong. I also am entitled to my opinion that Pres. Obama is the worst president of my life time. I know a great many people who agree with me. I also remember plenty of Democrats saying they felt the same way about Pres. Bush. I might not agree, but they were allowed to have that opinion.

    ~Bonita~

  4. #24
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    Overall I am not in support of EO for anything other than procedural issues. Presidents should not be able to make laws. It does not matter to me that all Presidents do it, I still think it is wrong. I also am entitled to my opinion that Pres. Obama is the worst president of my life time. I know a great many people who agree with me. I also remember plenty of Democrats saying they felt the same way about Pres. Bush. I might not agree, but they were allowed to have that opinion.
    I don't have a problem with your belief that he is the worst president ever. I even said you are entitled to that opinion. So you don't need to convince me that you are allowed to think that. But I do have a problem(not a personal problem, a debate style problem) with throwing it around in specific debates when you can't really prove how this issue contributes to that actual feeling. I mean disagreeing with a specific policy is one thing...we all disagree with every president at some point or another. But to say something contributes to someone being the "worst president ever" is a different thing.

    When in reality you disagree about raising an existing limit and the idea of Executive Orders in general which the latter has nothing to do with Obama himself.

    I feel like its just building a straw man case against Obama to say "He's the worst presient ever!!!" and get that worked up over something that really...when it comes to presidential decisions, this is not worth such outstanding comments. If you are going to convince yourself that he is the worst president ever, do it objectively. This just...how can you argue that this issue stands out as something that contributes to 'the worst presidency'

    If someone writes a book about the worst president ever...whoever that president might be, i sure hope its filled with better fodder than this!

    I think this bugs me because people get so worked up about who they hate that they no longer look objectively at things and everything is a big deal. I don't mean you, i mean people in general. Nothing any longer is just a 'simple disagreement'....its a "This is TERRIBLE! OMG!"

    Its so divisive and contributes to our stalled out government. And FTR I think Dems often do it too with Reps. Doesn't make it right for either of them!

  5. #25
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post

    When in reality you disagree about raising an existing limit and the idea of Executive Orders in general which the latter has nothing to do with Obama himself.
    When I first posted it, I said that it was my "Preliminary" thoughts. I had done nothing but read the article. At that point I did not know there was an existing limit and I did not realise that it was not all salaried employees. If it was those things that I first thought, I had a very negative reaction and my first thought to reading the article was that "wow, he really is a terrible president". Those were my firsts thoughts on the subject.

    ~Bonita~

  6. #26
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    When I first posted it, I said that it was my "Preliminary" thoughts. I had done nothing but read the article. At that point I did not know there was an existing limit and I did not realise that it was not all salaried employees. If it was those things that I first thought, I had a very negative reaction and my first thought to reading the article was that "wow, he really is a terrible president". Those were my firsts thoughts on the subject.
    Yes, i get that, but if you are going to throw it out there on a debate board...expect it to be debated!
    freddieflounder101 likes this.

  7. #27
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,573

    Default

    I don't think this affects me. In California, simply being salaried is not enough to make you exempt from overtime compensation. (It's usually not paid, but compensatory time off.) And simply having a title of "manager" is not enough to make you exempt. It's what you actually do, and where you fall in the chain of command, that determines it.
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions