Can't Make This Up

[Kathianne]

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/336639/


JULY 21, 2019
#FIGHTFOR15: Bernie Sanders Is Finally Guaranteeing His Workers $15/Hr Minimum Wage…By Cutting Hours (https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2019/07/21/bernie-sanders-finally-guaranteeing-workers-15hr-minimum-wage...by-cutting-hours).
Buried lede: socialist discovers how economics works. Or as Karol Markowicz tweets (https://twitter.com/karol/status/1153011531128483840), “Bernie raising his staff’s pay but cutting their hours sums up life under socialism much better than I ever could.”

[Abbey Marie]

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/336639/




[/FONT][/COLOR]

Now that’s funny! I shall call him Bernie Panders...

[STTAB]

So Bernie had to do exactly what people who actually run businesses have told him they would have to do if the minimum wage went too high too fast .

And this just shows how stupid Bernie supporters are. Just a little math tells you that if you get a $2 an hour raise but get your hours cut by 8 hours a week you have actually LOST money by getting a raise ..

TOO funny.

[Noir]

I’m sure if you gave most people the option to work more hours or less hours for the same amount of pay at the end of the month they’d choose less hours. No?

[STTAB]

I’m sure if you gave most people the option to work more hours or less hours for the same amount of pay at the end of the month they’d choose less hours. No?

Noir , why do you always argue so dishonestly? For real

Their fucking argument was "we can't pay our bills on $13 an hour" not "we're having to work too many hours"

So, if you aren't able to pay your bills at $13 hour working lets say say 50 hours a week, what the fuck good did getting a $2 an hour raise but losing 10 hours of pay do you ? The answer is obvious, none, because you now have LESS money in your pocket.

[Noir]

Noir , why do you always argue so dishonestly? For real

Their fucking argument was "we can't pay our bills on $13 an hour" not "we're having to work too many hours"

So, if you aren't able to pay your bills at $13 hour working lets say say 50 hours a week, what the fuck good did getting a $2 an hour raise but losing 10 hours of pay do you ? The answer is obvious, none, because you now have LESS money in your pocket.

I didn’t see the numbers for the Sanders staff, are they walking away with less money after the wage increase and the hourly cut?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/336639/




[/FONT][/COLOR]

Bernie proves that even when socialism cheats, tries to fudge math it fails.
As a failed idea , that is failed at birth--will always fail.
Yer socialists live by the cheating method to give the illusion of success.
Their problem is in this modern world too many people are educated, can read and write and are not the the illiterate peasants they first started with in their glorious march in to insanity , and enslavement to gain power over the masses.
Yet our universities are teaching the amazing wonders of socialism, and the ( lying) travesty of this Constitutional based Representative Republic.
As it is far easier to persuade the young(oft innocent) that know no better and believe the professors are gods of knowledge.
Sad and totally corrupt but hey that is the dem party now. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I didn’t see the numbers for the Sanders staff, are they walking away with less money after the wage increase and the hourly cut?

Always looking for a way to defend that which can not be defended.
Surely at least one shade of grey can be found to give at least some microscopic shred of defense of socialism-- right? :laugh:
At least you are true to your socialist beliefs, right.???--Tyr

[Kathianne]

I’m sure if you gave most people the option to work more hours or less hours for the same amount of pay at the end of the month they’d choose less hours. No?
Not so much here. many don't take all of their vacation time.

From the employers point of view, too many employees means more benefits, more cost.

WHICH IS WHY BERNIE is looking at reducing his staff.

[Kathianne]

I didn’t see the numbers for the Sanders staff, are they walking away with less money after the wage increase and the hourly cut?

Actually in the case of political campaign workers, they often work 60-90 hours a week. With this, there are likely to be some making more, but overall a loss since there will be layoffs. There's only so much $$$ for salaries. So, something will give.

Before this, all were making at least $13.85 per hour and time and half for over 40. Now there will be fewer, but they have to pay more of health care and you can bet they will try to cut overtime. Then those laid off, will make 0, until they find something else.

[STTAB]

I didn’t see the numbers for the Sanders staff, are they walking away with less money after the wage increase and the hourly cut?

What numbers do you need to see bro?

$2 an hour is $80 figuring a 40 hour work week. They were making $13 an hour (actually $13 and some change but well round down) now you figure $13 an hour a man has to work 6 hours to make that $80.

That quite obviously means if your hours get cut by 8 per week, you've broken even at best.

[STTAB]

Actually in the case of political campaign workers, they often work 60-90 hours a week. With this, there are likely to be some making more, but overall a loss since there will be layoffs. There's only so much $$$ for salaries. So, something will give.

Before this, all were making at least $13.85 per hour and time and half for over 40. Now there will be fewer, but they have to pay more of health care and you can bet they will try to cut overtime. Then those laid off, will make 0, until they find something else.

When I heard the amount he was paying I actually thought that was pretty generous. I thought most campaign workers were volunteers except the high ranking people.

What this absolutely proves is that it's never enough for some people.

[Noir]

What numbers do you need to see bro?

$2 an hour is $80 figuring a 40 hour work week. They were making $13 an hour (actually $13 and some change but well round down) now you figure $13 an hour a man has to work 6 hours to make that $80.

That quite obviously means if your hours get cut by 8 per week, you've broken even at best.

You need to see the number of hours that got cut, bro.

[Noir]

Actually in the case of political campaign workers, they often work 60-90 hours a week. With this, there are likely to be some making more, but overall a loss since there will be layoffs. There's only so much $$$ for salaries. So, something will give.

Before this, all were making at least $13.85 per hour and time and half for over 40. Now there will be fewer, but they have to pay more of health care and you can bet they will try to cut overtime. Then those laid off, will make 0, until they find something else.

I didn’t see anything in the OP about staffers getting laid off, or the exact number of hours being reduced, is that information somewhere else?

[STTAB]

You need to see the number of hours that got cut, bro.

No you don't because the campaign already announced they were gonna cut hours so that they actually aren't paying more in salaries now than they were.

There is only so much money to go around Noir, they can't just magically make money appear. They have $X to pay in wages , and no real control over income. Something has to give. That something is hours.

[Noir]

No you don't because the campaign already announced they were gonna cut hours so that they actually aren't paying more in salaries now than they were.

There is only so much money to go around Noir, they can't just magically make money appear. They have $X to pay in wages , and no real control over income. Something has to give. That something is hours.

Yes you do.
If the campaign has X to pay in wages, and they increase the wage per hour, but decrease the hours worked so that the total wage bill is still X then that’s good for staffers.

But without knowledge of the cut in hours relative to hourly increase in pay we have no idea if the staffers are better of, about the same, or worse of.

[STTAB]

Yes you do.
If the campaign has X to pay in wages, and they increase the wage per hour, but decrease the hours worked so that the total wage bill is still X then that’s good for staffers.

But without knowledge of the cut in hours relative to hourly increase in pay we have no idea if the staffers are better of, about the same, or worse of.

Noir. read carefully for content

The staffers were complaining that they were not making enough per week , that they needed a liveable wage Now I submit this for your consideration.

Suppose I offer you a job making $200 an hour, but I'd only have you working 2 hours a week. Now let's suppose Kath also offered you a job, but she was offering a 40 work week, at $10 an hour. Which job would you accept and why? I mean I could and would argue that I was offering $200 an hour man, that's far beyond anything Kath could afford to pay you.

These people were not complaining that they had to work overtime. In fact I rather suspect that they expected that they would get a raise to $15 an hour AND keep working the same hours that they were working.

[Drummond]

I’m sure if you gave most people the option to work more hours or less hours for the same amount of pay at the end of the month they’d choose less hours. No?

It's a simple and rather cheap point to make, and maybe a bit diversionary ... but what the hell. I just can't resist .... :rolleyes:

In Britain, there was once considerable enthusiasm for working as few hours as possible, for as much pay as you could get out of employers. That enthusiasm, that leadership, came from militant trade Unionists.

They had their answer ... go on strike. Stay out on strike, until Management caved in ... and just HOW increases in pay could be afforded, for no extra productivity ... well, the Unions never wanted to address THAT one.

They just insisted that everyone else, EXCEPT them, did so.

What was the result ? Cutting a long story short .. job losses, damaged economy, rack and ruin !

Money must be earned, Noir. It's a fact of life. Wage increases are great, IF their worth is underpinned by the productivity generating the capital making it all possible. Doesn't matter what people ideally prefer, Noir, the reality of affordability is what really counts.

You say you're from my part of the world, so, you must yourself know the history I'm referring to. I do wonder why you've learned nothing from it.

[Kathianne]

I didn’t see anything in the OP about staffers getting laid off, or the exact number of hours being reduced, is that information somewhere else?

They've been in 'negotiations' for awhile now, which is why he was pissed that the union went public. (https://nypost.com/2019/07/21/bernie-sanders-feels-the-union-burn-over-minimum-wage-fiasco/)
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/20/20700841/bernie-sanders-minimum-wage-staff-pay

It does seem he stretched the truth a few months back:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/9/18538272/bernie-sanders-campaign-staff-union-contract-details

[STTAB]

They've been in 'negotiations' for awhile now, which is why he was pissed that the union went public. (https://nypost.com/2019/07/21/bernie-sanders-feels-the-union-burn-over-minimum-wage-fiasco/)
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/20/20700841/bernie-sanders-minimum-wage-staff-pay

It does seem he stretched the truth a few months back:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/9/18538272/bernie-sanders-campaign-staff-union-contract-details

Bernie wouldn't lie, would he?

[Noir]

Noir. read carefully for content

The staffers were complaining that they were not making enough per week , that they needed a liveable wage Now I submit this for your consideration.

Suppose I offer you a job making $200 an hour, but I'd only have you working 2 hours a week. Now let's suppose Kath also offered you a job, but she was offering a 40 work week, at $10 an hour. Which job would you accept and why? I mean I could and would argue that I was offering $200 an hour man, that's far beyond anything Kath could afford to pay you.

These people were not complaining that they had to work overtime. In fact I rather suspect that they expected that they would get a raise to $15 an hour AND keep working the same hours that they were working.

I would accept your job, guaranteeing $400 for 2 hours work, and look for a second job with all my free working hours remaining.

Would anyone looking at that example chose otherwise?

[STTAB]

I would accept your job, guaranteeing $400 for 2 hours work, and look for a second job with all my free working hours remaining.

Would anyone looking at that example chose otherwise?

Ah but you see, how can you do that, when you don't know WHAT 2 hours I will need you for? At $200 an hour I would, of course, expect you to be available at a moment's notice.

[Noir]

Ah but you see, how can you do that, when you don't know WHAT 2 hours I will need you for? At $200 an hour I would, of course, expect you to be available at a moment's notice.

Oh, Spicy! Are you going to add any more random elements to this weird got’cha fantasy?

[Noir]

They've been in 'negotiations' for awhile now, which is why he was pissed that the union went public. (https://nypost.com/2019/07/21/bernie-sanders-feels-the-union-burn-over-minimum-wage-fiasco/)
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/20/20700841/bernie-sanders-minimum-wage-staff-pay

It does seem he stretched the truth a few months back:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/9/18538272/bernie-sanders-campaign-staff-union-contract-details

These links talk about how the field workers are salaried based on a 40 hour week, but because they actually work 60 hour weeks their pay is less than you would expect per hour. So reducing the hours worked to the expected salaried hours is the right thing to do, no?

[STTAB]

Oh, Spicy! Are you going to add any more random elements to this weird got’cha fantasy?

It's not a gotcha fantasy at all. The fantasy is you guys thinking companies are just gonna be okay with making next to no profit at all. I mean seriously here is where liberal fantasy is

"Companies should pay $15 an hour , at least for ALL employees, and be taxed at 70% to fund free stuff for those who can't work, or simply dont' want to."

Talk about a fucking fantasy.

[Abbey Marie]

Usually when hours are considered part-time, benefits go away.

[STTAB]

Usually when hours are considered part-time, benefits go away.

I just had no idea that these people were so well paid, and with benefits. For real. I thought working on a campaign was about the experience and the networking. I mean for the low level staffers of course, the people who are making the $15 an hour, not the big shots.

[jimnyc]

It's not a gotcha fantasy at all. The fantasy is you guys thinking companies are just gonna be okay with making next to no profit at all. I mean seriously here is where liberal fantasy is

"Companies should pay $15 an hour , at least for ALL employees, and be taxed at 70% to fund free stuff for those who can't work, or simply dont' want to."

Talk about a fucking fantasy.

You do know that the left IS "Fantasy Land" right? They live in it and live by it.

I stated this a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNG time ago that these companies simply will not take a loss, and shouldn't.

I stated this a long time ago that these companies simply will not take a loss and that they will alter the price on products, lessen the amount of employees or lessen hours. At the end of the day their net profit will remain the same if they can help it. That makes it kind of about 700% obvious that either hours or # of employees was gonna change. That's business. You have the right to quit and seek employment elsewhere to your preference. If you don't like it, and you bitch and whine about it and your job, they have the right to fire you.

*Things are differently when under a bonafide contract, and even then you can be fired for cause. And no 15hrly job or less, likely comes with a contract that would matter. Almost every job is considered "at will" and that about covers that!
** A government employee receives different protections.

https://i.imgur.com/TVPCwJq.png

[jimnyc]

Usually when hours are considered part-time, benefits go away.

AND some employers will work jobs like this:

Hire new people. Everyone busts their butts. Takes working there 3 months to get benefits kick in. After 2 1/2 months of employment, you get shit-canned. New employees come in quickly and take your job. :laugh: Rotate some into FT with benefits and when that happens, some poor bastard there for 4 years gets shit-canned.

I was working for a make-up company on assembly line when this happened to me. I think Cindy Crawford was with them once... Started with an "R" and ended with an "n" and when pronounced sounded a lot like Revlon. :)

(got that when pronounced thingy from darin. He once said his dog's name is Aoife, and when pronounced it sounded like "Meatball" :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

These links talk about how the field workers are salaried based on a 40 hour week, but because they actually work 60 hour weeks their pay is less than you would expect per hour. So reducing the hours worked to the expected salaried hours is the right thing to do, no?

Huh? They are all about Bernie and his workers.

[STTAB]

You do know that the left IS "Fantasy Land" right? They live in it and live by it.

I stated this a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNG time ago that these companies simply will not take a loss, and shouldn't.

I stated this a long time ago that these companies simply will not take a loss and that they will alter the price on products, lessen the amount of employees or lessen hours. At the end of the day their net profit will remain the same if they can help it. That makes it kind of about 700% obvious that either hours or # of employees was gonna change. That's business. You have the right to quit and seek employment elsewhere to your preference. If you don't like it, and you bitch and whine about it and your job, they have the right to fire you.

*Things are differently when under a bonafide contract, and even then you can be fired for cause. And no 15hrly job or less, likely comes with a contract that would matter. Almost every job is considered "at will" and that about covers that!
** A government employee receives different protections.

https://i.imgur.com/TVPCwJq.png

I have a friend who owns several McDonalds including the one closest to where I live. Last year when minimum wage went up he raised prices. Now the way he tells me when he figured prices he figured he himself would absorb 25% of the minimum wage increase and the rest he would pass on to customers in the form of higher prices.

To me, that is a responsible thing to do. But anyway we were talking about it one night and he told that per store the little over a dollar increase in the minimum wage cost him about $12K a year out of his own pocket. Now, on average he profits just over $200K per store - that $12K , so 5% of his profits went to a $1 an hour or so increase in the minimum wage. Imagine if it jumped from $9 to $15 you have to figure losing on 5% of profit for every $1 the minimum wage was increased based on actual numbers. meaning his profit per store would drop a further 30%. Now realize that profit is only in the year where nothing goes wrong. This year he had to tear a store completely down and replace it, as in McDoonalds Corp gave him two choices, tear the store down or lose his franchises. Now, he could have tore it down and just sold the land , he didn't have to put a new store in it's place, but ........... Anyway , that little endeavor cost him $7M by the time he demolished the store, moved most of the staff to other stores and paid them to work out of his own pocket to avoid destroying the labor rate at those other stores, and built a new store on the site.

Where do people like Noir think that $7M came from ? I can tell you where it came from, a bank loan. Dude didn't have $7M just laying around. So every month a portion of the profit that each of his stores makes is gonna guy right to the bank to pay on that loan.

But yes, the rich need to "pay their fare share" whatever the fuck that means.

[jimnyc]

Had another thread on him and being a liar just a few days ago. I see it hasn't changed yet!

Fact is = the man is a liar, like most democrats. He knows what the net profit needs to be (if you will) - so raises hourly to $15 (now anyway). Then adjusts accordingly, whether that be a loss of hours, lowering of employees... whatever it takes to meet the "profits" aka what he can pay max.

[STTAB]

Had another thread on him and being a liar just a few days ago. I see it hasn't changed yet!

Fact is = the man is a liar, like most democrats. He knows what the net profit needs to be (if you will) - so raises hourly to $15 (now anyway). Then adjusts accordingly, whether that be a loss of hours, lowering of employees... whatever it takes to meet the "profits" aka what he can pay max.

Exactly , if Bernie believed in what he was selling the Bernie Dopes, Bernie could easily afford to pay everyone of his campaign workers $15 an hour out of his own pocket, given that the campaign will last what 2 years? Bernie could easily afford that, but though he believes my friend should pay that out of HIS pocket, he most certainly does not believe that he Bernie should pay it out of HIS pocket.

[Abbey Marie]

Had another thread on him and being a liar just a few days ago. I see it hasn't changed yet!

Fact is = the man is a liar, like most democrats. He knows what the net profit needs to be (if you will) - so raises hourly to $15 (now anyway). Then adjusts accordingly, whether that be a loss of hours, lowering of employees... whatever it takes to meet the "profits" aka what he can pay max.

He’s married to a liar; makes sense...

[STTAB]

Hes’s married to a liar; makes sense...

Yeah you notice nothing ever came of that either. Democrats can truly break whatever laws they like with impunity.

[Kathianne]

It gets better!

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/07/23/oh-yes-bernie-sanderss-campaign-hit-federal-labor-complaint/


Oh Yes: Bernie Sanders’s Campaign Hit With … Federal Labor Complaint

ALLAHPUNDITPosted at 7:21 pm on July 23, 2019


What can one say about this (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/sanders-white-house-campaign-hit-with-federal-labor-complaint)?

Except that it’s the greatest day in American political history, I mean.


Am I still an atheist after reading it? I don’t know. I just. don’t. know.


Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign has been hit with an unfair labor practice complaint alleging illegal employee interrogation and retaliation against staffers.

The July 19 complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, filed by an unnamed individual in Indiana, was posted to the agency’s website late July 22. It comes as tense negotiations between the Sanders campaign and the union representing staffers recently boiled over publicly. The Washington Post reported July 23 that unionized organizers for the campaign had won a pay raise and reached a compromise to reduce the hours of some workers.

A copy of the charge has not yet been made public, but the agency’s July 22 docket lists five potential violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The charge also alleges that the campaign unlawfully discharged an employee, modified a labor contract, and engaged in illegal discipline.



Illegal employee interrogation, eh? On the one hand, Bloomberg notes that anyone can file a complaint with the NLRB. Conceivably this could be nothing more than baseless mischief-making by a political enemy aiming to capitalize on public attention to Team Bernie’s labor troubles lately, knowing that righties like me are going to snuggle this story like a new puppy. File the complaint, generate the bad headline, and trust that no one will be paying attention when it turns out a month from now that there was nothing to it. Damage done.

But there’s also this recent quote from Bernie himself (https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/07/21/bernie-sanders-campaign-responds-staffers-demand-15-minimum-wage-cutting-back-hours/) when he was asked about not paying his field organizers an (average) $15 hourly wage, which of course he believes should be the statutory minimum as a matter of national policy:


“It does bother me that people are going outside of the process and going to the media,” he said. “That is really not acceptable. It is really not what labor negotiations are about, and it’s improper.”

So management was mad at labor for leaking to the press, and now here’s a complaint claiming that managers interrogated employees illegally and even retaliated against them. Hmmm. :laugh2:

We’re like two days away from Bernie sending in Pinkerton goons to crack heads.

Actually, and alas, the fun we’ve been having with the Sanders campaign’s labor problems seems to be ending. Top officials reached a deal with the union (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-bernie-sanderss-campaign-organizers-reach-deal-for-pay-raise/2019/07/23/dbca3ac4-ace5-11e9-8e77-03b30bc29f64_story.html) this afternoon to boost the pay of field organizers to $42,000 per year in return for extending the work week from five days to six — with an important caveat:


The deal would extend the workweek from five days to six days. But it also would clarify that the expected hours worked each week would be 50. The changes would mean that if the organizers are working 50-hour weeks, then they would make an annual salary equivalent to more than $15 per hour, which Sanders has said for years should be the federal minimum. But if they work longer hours, which the union said could happen, even voluntarily, then the equivalent hourly rate could drop below that threshold.



Sounds to me like all they did here was give everyone a raise in exchange for labor agreeing to maintain the fiction that they’re only working 50 hours a week on average going forward. That solves everyone’s political problem by producing an average hourly wage greater than $15, but in reality, now that they’re coming into the office six days a week instead of five, they’re going to end up working more than 50 hours weekly “voluntarily.” They were already working an average of 60 before this dispute began, in fact.

Maybe private employers could use that dodge if and when they get stuck with a national $15 hourly minimum wage. Workers get $15 an hour for their first 30 hours, say, and then the next 10-20 after that consists of “volunteering.” Sounds like a plan.

[Abbey Marie]

:dance:

[hjmick]

According to Newsweak...


On Thursday evening, The Washington Post reported that some members of Sanders' campaign have been lobbying to raise their wages. Field organizers say they make a salary of $36,000 annually but work 60 hours per week, which is an average of $13 per hour.

Unionized workers planned to send a letter to campaign manager Faiz Shakir which read that "many field staffers are barely managing to survive financially, which is severely impacting our team's productivity and morale." Some employees, they said, had even left the campaign as a result of the low pay.

In a statement provided to Newsweek, Shakir said that the campaign has been in discussions about pay structure changes with the United Food & Commercial Workers Local 400, the union representing the organizers.

"We look forward to continuing those discussions and obviously are disappointed that some individuals decided to damage the integrity of these efforts before they were concluded," Shakir said. "As these discussions continue, we are limiting hours so no employee is receiving less than $15 for any hours worked."

Sanders' 2020 campaign was the first to unionize in March 2019. The union then made an agreement with the campaign that field workers were to be paid $36,000 annually. The contract, which began on May 2, also provides platinum level health care, paid vacation, sick leave and other benefits...

Bernie Sanders Campaign Responds to $15 Minimum Wage Controversy with Better Hours for Staff (https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-15-dollar-minimum-wage-staff-2020-controversy-1450267)


So from what I gather from the Newsweak article, campaign workers were being paid a salary, not an hourly wage. In most cases, salaried employees are not eligible for overtime, but usually have to put some OT in for the job. Also, in most cases, salaries are negotiated and/or agreed to prior to employment. So we have a bunch of people who agree to do a job, for a set wage, then want a new deal when they find out how hard the job is (getting Bernie elected).

No sympathy from me. Who wants to bet the majority of them are millennials?


What was it Richard Attenburough's John Hammond said to Wayne Knight's character Dennis Nedry in Jurassic Park?

I don't blame people for their mistakes. But I do ask that they pay for them.


In context, Nedry was complaining about the money he agreed to in his contract to set up the computer systems for Jurassic Park.

[SassyLady]

Yes you do.
If the campaign has X to pay in wages, and they increase the wage per hour, but decrease the hours worked so that the total wage bill is still X then that’s good for staffers.

But without knowledge of the cut in hours relative to hourly increase in pay we have no idea if the staffers are better of, about the same, or worse of.

How much work is not getting done due to reduction in hours Noir? Boss is still paying same amount in wages but getting less production. How long can a business operate under those conditions?

[Noir]

How much work is not getting done due to reduction in hours Noir? Boss is still paying same amount in wages but getting less production. How long can a business operate under those conditions?

If your business isn’t profitable without staff “volunteering” to do 20 hours a week more than they’re salaried then your business being operable is just an illusion that your staff are paying the price for to sustain.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Well, if I was feel the bern Bernie, I'd just close up shop and retire and enjoy the rest of my life, after I took care of my legal problems, because he got the shaft from the DNC last prez election, and now this, this time. As if he stood a chance anyway, regardless, he's toast now.

[jimnyc]

Pay less for longer hours - people WILL take others places, especially recent grads, unemployed and seniors.

Pay more for less hours, and bring automation.

Pay no one in some places, bring in automation. <--- that would be my preference if an owner that could achieve as much.

---

Employees that cannot make do with what they accepted originally are FREE to fuck off and find employment elsewhere to their liking, and a business owner can run his business as he chooses - not how employees demand. And if one HAS to bring in some more hours as a result, and now higher paid folks are getting hours back - LOWER benefits across the board. The employees with lesser hours - make them now PT and cut out all benefits except for breaks and a few sick days, maybe 5 per year TOPS if me. Problem solved, most idiots gone. If anyone going forward has an issue, they too can follow the other - people WILL gladly take their jobs. And start investing in automation!

[jimnyc]

Litttle 'ol messy hair socialism weakboy is getting what he deserves. People are SO SO STUPID as not to get the basics AND that THEY are not in charge.

And not to mention, this scenario is different than most. The overwhelming majority, jobs like McDonalds, you ain't getting salary, and already not getting more than 20-30 hours per week - and THOSE are the weak dolts that then make demands. :rolleyes:

Look at the first thing in bold - that is how almost all liberals, lefties, democrats operate, FACT.



Bernie Sanders Deserves His Comeuppance in the Minimum Wage War

Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign was just disrupted by campaign workers demanding the same $15 per hour Sanders demands government force all employers to pay.

It serves him right.

Years ago, the activist group ACORN faced the same problem. After fighting for a higher minimum wage, they tried to convince a judge they should be granted an exception when paying their own workers, since they were involved in such important and productive work.

Government telling employers what to pay people creates nasty side effects.

Five years ago, Seattle won fame by becoming the first American city to mandate a $15 per hour minimum.

"Fifteen in Seattle is just a beginning. We have an entire world to win! Solidarity!" vowed City Councilmember Kshama Sawant.

New York state and many cities followed in Seattle's footsteps.

But now the results from Seattle are in:

Some people who already had jobs are being paid more. They're the winners under the new law.

But the losers are needier people: people who are looking for jobs.

After Seattle raised its minimum wage to $15, entry-level job growth stalled. Job growth continued in the rest of Washington state but not in Seattle.

The $15 minimum helped some people while hurting even poorer people.

"It's presented by minimum wage advocates as a win-win ... no negatives," complains a skeptical Erin Shannon of the Washington Policy Center in my latest video.

Shannon points out the negatives. For example, stores that once hired inexperienced kids and trained them, giving them valuable starter experience, stopped doing so once Seattle raised its minimum wage.

"Politicians," one store owner told my video producer, "have no sense whatsoever about what it means to small businesses like us."

Today, for companies with more than 500 workers, Seattle's minimum wage is $16 per hour.

It's as if the politicians never learned about supply and demand. They think prices can be set wherever government decrees, with no consequences.

But there are many bad consequences.

Twenty-year-old Dillon Hodes understands that. He's a winner of the video-making contest run by my charity, Stossel in the Classroom. Hodes saw what happened to his friend when the Kroger she worked at raised its minimum wage to $12 an hour.

"She was getting paid $12 an hour, but slowly, they started cutting her days, her hours. She was (eventually) regulated to only working on Sundays. That's because she was young and inexperienced," explains Hodes. "She's worth the world to me, but she wasn't worth $12 to Kroger."

The $12 minimum wage took away her job. How much more damage will a $15 minimum do?

Rigel Nobel-Kosa, another sitc.org video contest winner, pointed out that many high employment "countries such as Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland" have no minimum wage laws.

They do not end up with impoverished workers making a penny an hour. Wages, like all prices, are a function of supply and demand. Switzerland has much less unemployment than the U.S.

Esther Rhodes won our high school essay contest, pointing out that America's first minimum wage laws were racist. At the time they were passed, blacks were more likely to be employed than whites. Blacks were paid less -- but they had jobs.

Congressman Miles Clayton Allgood, D-Ala., then said he hoped a minimum wage law would stop "cheap colored labor in competition with white labor."

So, explains Rhodes, although Americans now think a minimum wage was meant to help the neediest people, "it was meant for the opposite: to keep the poor and the minorities from getting jobs!"

She also understands that the law now makes it harder for her to get a job.

"I'm 14," says Rhodes. "My labor wouldn't be worth $15 an hour!"

All government's workplace rules have nasty unintended consequences.

If only the politicians were as smart as the sitc.org kids.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bernie-sanders-deserves-his-comeuppance-in-the-minimum-wage-war/

[STTAB]

"If only the politicians were smart"

No need for that, just keep the voter base stupid and they won't realize that they are being led by crooks and scam artists.

[hjmick]

If your business isn’t profitable without staff “volunteering” to do 20 hours a week more than they’re salaried then your business being operable is just an illusion that your staff are paying the price for to sustain.

First, we're not really talking about a business. We're talking about an election campaign.

Second, do you really think that these people agreed to take the jobs without knowing what was expected of them? If they did, well, they're all idiots.

Third, they didn't start asking for more money until after they unionized and their union masters told them they needed more money.

Fourth, in a real business being a salaried employee comes with some perks, like not having to use your PTO for a sick day. Being on salary also comes with certain responsibilities, like opening the business, supervising employees. Being on salary also comes with certain expectations, like putting in extra hours to get the job done or meet certain goals. The trade off is usually something called "comp days", days off that don't require the use of PTO. Your "idea" that a business isn't "operable, or profitable, if the salaried staff has to put in extra time is extremely naive and uninformed.

Though in this case, I'm certain Bernie's "business" is destined to fail.


You know, there was a time when a person took a job and did their best work possible because to do otherwise would be tantamount to theft, theft from the employer. As long as a person received a paycheck, they owed their employer their best work. That's how I was raised, that's the contract I made with myself when I took the few jobs I've had. It pays off... in raises, bonuses, privileges, respect, and trust. You don't see that kind of attitude in the majority of people of your generation. They want it all, and they want it now. They don't want to work for it, they feel entitled to it. I hope I'm not alive to see the outcome of that attitude and I am happy I raised my kids better than that.


Finally, these Sanders campaign workers aren't getting anymore money, just fewer hours. If they didn't make it with the money they were making before their hours were cut, how are the going to make it now? The money is the same...

[jimnyc]

You know, there was a time when a person took a job and did their best work possible because to do otherwise would be tantamount to theft, theft from the employer. As long as a person received a paycheck, they owed their employer their best work. That's how I was raised, that's the contract I made with myself when I took the few jobs I've had. It pays off... in raises, bonuses, privileges, respect, and trust. You don't see that kind of attitude in the majority of people of your generation. They want it all, and they want it now. They don't want to work for it, they feel entitled to it. I hope I'm not alive to see the outcome of that attitude and I am happy I raised my kids better than that.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

You rock!! perfectly stated!

But, you DO know the reason for the above right? If you read any of my posts in like 10 years.... PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - of which is foreign to all of them.

[hjmick]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

You rock!! perfectly stated!

But, you DO know the reason for the above right? If you read any of my posts in like 10 years.... PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - of which is foreign to all of them.


Thank you, sir.


And you're right, with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "you're not wrong" and "I'll fix it for you" and "no one fails" world of most parents these days, there is no hope that young people will have a chance to learn about personal responsibility.


Or character, for that matter.

[SassyLady]

If your business isn’t profitable without staff “volunteering” to do 20 hours a week more than they’re salaried then your business being operable is just an illusion that your staff are paying the price for to sustain.

A business supports more than its owner ... it supports the staff, the suppliers, the clients, the lenders, the community and yes the taxing authorities. A salaried employee isn't "Volunteering" 20 hours. They are paid to do a job and do it well .... not paid to work "hours".

I'm so damn tired of hearing staff are "paying the price" .... if you don't like working for a wage, start your own business and pay yourself the same as your employees. You'll soon find they are not as invested, carry same liability, or as stressed out as you but, hey, they get the same pay without same burden.

[Noir]

A business supports more than its owner ... it supports the staff, the suppliers, the clients, the lenders, the community and yes the taxing authorities. A salaried employee isn't "Volunteering" 20 hours. They are paid to do a job and do it well .... not paid to work "hours".

I'm so damn tired of hearing staff are "paying the price" .... if you don't like working for a wage, start your own business and pay yourself the same as your employees. You'll soon find they are not as invested, carry same liability, or as stressed out as you but, hey, they get the same pay without same burden.

“The union’s gripe centers on the fact that field organizers, the lowest-level workers, often put in 60 hours a week but get paid only for 40, since they’re on a flat salary.”

That sounds a lot to me like the staffer is Volunteering 20 hours

[jimnyc]

A business supports more than its owner ... it supports the staff, the suppliers, the clients, the lenders, the community and yes the taxing authorities. A salaried employee isn't "Volunteering" 20 hours. They are paid to do a job and do it well .... not paid to work "hours".

I'm so damn tired of hearing staff are "paying the price" .... if you don't like working for a wage, start your own business and pay yourself the same as your employees. You'll soon find they are not as invested, carry same liability, or as stressed out as you but, hey, they get the same pay without same burden.

Apparently only the USA uses "salary" I guess. :dunno:

When someone works 90 hours in a week, and is salary - those extra hours, benefits, sick days & everything else that comes with that position - are all altered to make a salary appropriate. And then you decide if you like that position or not. But only a idiot would think that a salary position is 40 straight hours. There's a monster difference between hourly and salary positions. If one takes salary and then doesn't like it - QUIT as you are a loser anyway and can't even honor your word, nor personal responsibility that comes with such positions. Go back to lemonade stands.

[Abbey Marie]

Apparently only the USA uses "salary" I guess. :dunno:

When someone works 90 hours in a week, and is salary - those extra hours, benefits, sick days & everything else that comes with that position - are all altered to make a salary appropriate. And then you decide if you like that position or not. But only a idiot would think that a salary position is 40 straight hours. There's a monster difference between hourly and salary positions. If one takes salary and then doesn't like it - QUIT as you are a loser anyway and can't even honor your word, nor personal responsibility that comes with such positions. Go back to lemonade stands.

Russ got home at 4 yesterday from I think his third Saturday at work out of the last 4. And he never works less than a 9.5 hr day M-F. The world doesn’t just go from 9-5 anymore. And there is certainly no “overtime” in the professional world.

No surprise that true believers like Bernie Panders’ supporters would expect to get more handed to them, though. It’s a Socialist fundamental tenet after all. I’m surprised his staffers aren’t just volunteers anyway. It would be worth it, because if a Socialist is elected, you definitely want to be in that inner circle. That’s where all the goodies are. The rest of us schmoes will have to do without.

[Noir]

Russ got home at 4 yesterday from I think his third Saturday out of the last 4. And he never works less than a 9.5 hr day M-F. The world doesn’t just go from 9-5 anymore. And there is certainly no “overtime” in the professional world.

Presumably a) This hourly expectation per week was expressed to him when he took the job? And b) he is happy with those expected hours?

[Abbey Marie]

Presumably a) This hourly expectation per week was expressed to him when he took the job? And b) he is happy with those expected hours?

Actually, no. He always had occasional on-call duties that he knew from the start. But they reorganized folks into new groups, and thus started the frequent Saturdays. So, no. Not happy about the extra hours.

[Gunny]

Actually, no. He always had occasional on-call duties that he knew from the start. But they reorganized folks into new groups, and thus started the frequent Saturdays. So, no. Not happy about the extra hours.Who would be?

Same Gunny pay:

Working 7:30-4:30 M-F at Camp Del Ma, Camp Pendleton, CA on the beach, family's 15 mins away

or

Sitting in the sand in Kuwait, duty day is usually 16 hours, 7 days a week indefinitely, family's half the World away (and cells weren't around then)

Hard to choose, huh?:laugh:

[jimnyc]

Actually, no. He always had occasional on-call duties that he knew from the start. But they reorganized folks into new groups, and thus started the frequent Saturdays. So, no. Not happy about the extra hours.

Yups, most aren't going to jump for joy over weekend work or double shifts, but it's VERY WELL KNOW TERRITORY for ANYONE who has evolved past minimum wage or McDonald's type crappy jobs. You work in Washington or wherever for a campaign.... or most other professional jobs. I was a lowly network administrator who got quite a raise to move to that side. A BIG raise for me at the time. But I know what a salary job entails - and that's working for your bosses, EARNING that extra pay, being available as necessary. 20 hours extra during busy 'seasons' or very busy reasons for other reasons, was not unheard of, nor was hitting 60-80 per week.

And I busted my butt for them, as I accepted the position, and was taught to always give it your all - whether that be sports, education or working and getting paid. You quit, or you do your best job for what YOU ACCEPTED.

At times, when I worked a 16 hour shift, or a 7 day week - and some of us did this for months on end, or just much of the time - we would often get recognized for our hard work and determination - and sometimes getting PTO days assigned, or monthly bonuses. But these were more rare than anything. And if you had non-stop excuses, eventually you are gone. If you do 50-55 and wear out, you're good to go, but may not get as many perks.

This is called working for a living. This is called being a MAN or a WOMAN and honoring your work and your PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and honoring your own work ethics as well. Unfortunately, you can quite often separate folks quite quickly as to who does their jobs, and who comes for a paycheck solely and how to cut corners.

Again - the bargained for salary one receives IS for them extra hours you may get, small or large, figured in ahead of time. But the weenies of the world will INSTANTLY make demands, or then wait until they have to do the extra work, and then make demands, or disappear or cut corners to bail. And you know right then and there that you have someone that doesn't care about responsibility, only cares about a quick and easy paycheck, how can they make demands & how can they work hourly hours but earn a salary wage.

Liberal weenies with no backbone, no sense of responsibility nor sense of obligation to their employers, no sense of honor...

Just about everything you see in a nearly failing employee with paper routes or McDonalds and someone that NOT only will never raise that corporate ladder nor will they desire too. Lower your expectations. Cut them to hourly. Make them happy about the less work and give them PART TIME 25 hours to work, cut their benefits out entirely, offer minimum breaks and days off for sickness or any reason - you work - you get 15 min break daily for your lunch, and back to work until clocking out. Your hours are approximately 5 per day and 15mins acceptable everywhere. Maybe drop these hours at 11-3 to lessen the chance they sneak out for another job. If you find out they are working elsewhere, fluctuate their working hours. Have them scheduled for various days that others are off for PTO or vacation. If they don't like the PT employment, they WERE free to EARN their pay, or they can quit and go work elsewhere.

[Gunny]

Too many words for me. "You quit or you did your best ..." covers it. We ALL signed on the dotted line, one way or another. Cry me a river on your own time, and let me know how your new job works out.

Edit: Not "you" you, Jimbob. The other you's :)

[SassyLady]

“The union’s gripe centers on the fact that field organizers, the lowest-level workers, often put in 60 hours a week but get paid only for 40, since they’re on a flat salary.”

That sounds a lot to me like the staffer is Volunteering 20 hours

Salaried is not 40 hrs. It's work until job is done. Be it 30 hrs or 60 hrs.

[SassyLady]

Apparently only the USA uses "salary" I guess. :dunno:

When someone works 90 hours in a week, and is salary - those extra hours, benefits, sick days & everything else that comes with that position - are all altered to make a salary appropriate. And then you decide if you like that position or not. But only a idiot would think that a salary position is 40 straight hours. There's a monster difference between hourly and salary positions. If one takes salary and then doesn't like it - QUIT as you are a loser anyway and can't even honor your word, nor personal responsibility that comes with such positions. Go back to lemonade stands.

Yep!

I never had my pay docked for long lunches, coming in late, jury duty, doctor appointments, school conferences, etc. Because I never, ever worked just 40 hours. In fact, I got in trouble for working too many hours at an "hourly" job because I didn't know how to walk out after 8 hrs. Just not in my bones. On a timeclock drove me nuts.

[hjmick]

Salaried is not 40 hrs. It's work until job is done. Be it 30 hrs or 60 hrs.


I've learned two things in this thread...


1: Noir will never get it.


2: I wouldn't want him working for me.

[Gunny]

I've learned two things in this thread...


1: Noir will never get it.


2: I wouldn't want him working for me.Best I can tell, Noir gets paid to breathe :)

[hjmick]

Best I can tell, Noir gets paid to breathe :)


Give the kid a trophy!

[jimnyc]

I've learned two things in this thread...
2: I wouldn't want him working for me.

Anyone who:


wants to change terms of their salary agreement, outside of potentially yearly review
doesn't display personal drive of their own, to honor what they agreed to
fails to have any personal responsibility, nor any sense of such towards an employer
Goes public with demands, or even just makes demands
doesn't simply have at a minimum 'decent' work standards and responsibility towards work 'obligations'

[Noir]

I've learned two things in this thread...

1: Noir will never get it.

2: I wouldn't want him working for me.


Give the kid a trophy!

You should be so lucky as to have someone like myself working with you, and sadly my employee of the month awards didn’t come with trophies, but they did go to the bother of printing out a page for the notice board so at least there’s that (:

[Noir]

Actually, no. He always had occasional on-call duties that he knew from the start. But they reorganized folks into new groups, and thus started the frequent Saturdays. So, no. Not happy about the extra hours.

That sucks, is he gonna ride it out in the hope that it changes back to something more reasonable?


Salaried is not 40 hrs. It's work until job is done. Be it 30 hrs or 60 hrs.

It depends on the contract - like my partner is salaried and it specifies her working hours in the contract - if she works more than that then the company either has to pay her or give her time off in lieu.

[STTAB]

Who would be?

Same Gunny pay:

Working 7:30-4:30 M-F at Camp Del Ma, Camp Pendleton, CA on the beach, family's 15 mins away

or

Sitting in the sand in Kuwait, duty day is usually 16 hours, 7 days a week indefinitely, family's half the World away (and cells weren't around then)

Hard to choose, huh?:laugh:

First time I want over there, we didn't even have the calling cards available. Hell , you were lucky if you got weekly access to a pay phone. Emergency calls were routed through channels and if someone above you decided "yes this is an emergency" maybe you would get a message.

[STTAB]

As for salaried positions.

One of the trade offs is you are often expected to work 50-60 hours a week sometimes more on big projects or whatever, but you are also given many personal days and such where you are paid even when you don't work, many more such days than hourly workers typically get.

Unless you're a teacher, in which case you rarely work more than 40 hours a week and when you do it's outside your contract so you get paid additional (such as coaching or driving a bus, or what have you) AND you have 3 months off in the summer AND you still get all sorts of personal days during the school year.

Right now, I've one pissed off soon to be ex teacher and an entire school board mad at me LOL . This woman, she teaches 3rd grade and for the last 5 years EVERY year she's taken more personal days than any other teacher in our entire school system. Why? Because she's a lazy bitch. I'm not exaggerating when I say last year we had to have a sub come in for her 48 days. They are generally allowed 20 personal day where basically no questions are asked, and most of them use every single one of them, but this woman over the last 5 years she has averaged 32 days per school year with last year being an all time high.

The superintendent fired her as the law allows him to, and now she's on fire about it. And half the school board "she's a good teacher, when she's there" No she isn't , and she's gone far too much. Our superintendent literally had to threaten to quit to keep the other jackasses on the school board from reversing his decision.

Anyway, I kind of rambled off topic there, sorry.

[jimnyc]

I've learned two things in this thread...

2: I wouldn't want *them working for me.

I changed up your quote a tad to encompass the masses in these articles.

What would you do if you hired a set amount of people for salary positions, laid out expectations of the position, laid out all benefits included - and then shortly later these folks "demand" larger salaries? Or they demand less hours? Or they point out their little 2 inch long name on a plaque in the break room, and tell you to get others to do the job? --- and what would you do if you saw someone do this many times over, and be very public about it - and then come rolling on over to your business and now apply for a extremely similar position?


Yep!

I never had my pay docked for long lunches, coming in late, jury duty, doctor appointments, school conferences, etc. Because I never, ever worked just 40 hours. In fact, I got in trouble for working too many hours at an "hourly" job because I didn't know how to walk out after 8 hrs. Just not in my bones. On a timeclock drove me nuts.

Out of all of your positions in your time - how many of them did you accept positions, and then demand a larger salary down the road? Demand less hours? Make demands of anything really?


Anyone who:


wants to change terms of their salary agreement, outside of potentially yearly review
doesn't display personal drive of their own, to honor what they agreed to
fails to have any personal responsibility, nor any sense of such towards an employer
Goes public with demands, or even just makes demands
doesn't simply have at a minimum 'decent' work standards and responsibility towards work 'obligations'


These nitwits want to do ALL OF THE ABOVE - and WORSE - they and their supporters see nothing wrong with this. And this is all part of their lack of responsibility & expectations for others to wipe their asses their entire lives.

[Abbey Marie]

H
That sucks, is he gonna ride it out in the hope that it changes back to something more reasonable?

...


We are planning on moving to New England in a year or so, so he’ll deal until then. If we don’t move, he wants to look around here for a different job. Luckily he’s highly skilled in a good field.
We aren’t youngsters, so it’s time to decrease stress and hopefully have more time to travel together.

To the point of the thread, he wouldn’t demand a higher salary to compensate for extra hours. It just doesn’t work that way here. If you’re not happy, you move on.

[Kathianne]

We are planning on moving to New England in a year or so, so he’ll deal until then. If we don’t move, he wants to look around here for a different job. Luckily he’s highly skilled in a good field.
We aren’t youngsters, so it’s time to decrease stress and hopefully have more time to travel together.

and that's what most Americans do. This is one of those areas that I don't think Europeans can understand Americans. I can remember my sociology classes in the 70's, when Europe kept decreasing their hours at work and increasing demands for days off, vacation and others. For some strange reason, Europeans could not understand the very significant differences in productivity between US and Europe. It really was simple, Americans like to work.

Indeed, even today, there are many Americans that do not take all of their vacation time, they've 'too much to do.'

When one doesn't find their employment measuring up with their wants/needs, keep working and doing one's best, while seeking other employment.

[Abbey Marie]

and that's what most Americans do. This is one of those areas that I don't think Europeans can understand Americans. I can remember my sociology classes in the 70's, when Europe kept decreasing their hours at work and increasing demands for days off, vacation and others. For some strange reason, Europeans could not understand the very significant differences in productivity between US and Europe. It really was simple, Americans like to work.

Indeed, even today, there are many Americans that do not take all of their vacation time, they've 'too much to do.'

When one doesn't find their employment measuring up with their wants/needs, keep working and doing one's best, while seeking other employment.

You missed my edit of my post. Pretty much what you said, lol.

[jimnyc]

H

We are planning on moving to New England in a year or so, so he’ll deal until then. If we don’t move, he wants to look around here for a different job. Luckily he’s highly skilled in a good field.
We aren’t youngsters, so it’s time to decrease stress and hopefully have more time to travel together.

To the point of the thread, he wouldn’t demand a higher salary to compensate for extra hours. It just doesn’t work that way here. If you’re not happy, you move on.

Imagine that - one honoring his word and his responsibilities, and decides responsibly that should he decide to want more or a difference, he would look around and use his education and experience to find a more suitable job and perhaps more money for a lateral change, if not up the ladder. But why doesn't he make a few demands and get less days and maybe a little more $$$ before you guys look elsewhere to live?

Do you think Russ got an education - because he knew that's the appropriate route to take if someone wants better jobs in life and more money for their work? Or was it to simply party?

If you do move, would that make a difference for either of you? What do you think, is it a regional thing to have personal responsibility and for one to honor what they agreed to?

---

OT but similar....

I don't care much for NY. Far too many idiots here. And stupid laws and regulations. To many lefties running the show (those demands) and making it a worse and worse place to live. It's extremely costly, the weather being on and off for as long as I lived, pretty much sucks. Too populated for my taste. I wonder.... I wonder if I should complain to the governor, maybe get me a free place built somewhere upstate, Adirondacks maybe a little closer? And then when Dems get their way, I'll sit back and get "paid" because I don't want to work.

The life, the utopia! :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

Imagine that - one honoring his word and his responsibilities, and decides responsibly that should he decide to want more or a difference, he would look around and use his education and experience to find a more suitable job and perhaps more money for a lateral change, if not up the ladder. But why doesn't he make a few demands and get less days and maybe a little more $$$ before you guys look elsewhere to live?

Do you think Russ got an education - because he knew that's the appropriate route to take if someone wants better jobs in life and more money for their work? Or was it to simply party?

If you do move, would that make a difference for either of you? What do you think, is it a regional thing to have personal responsibility and for one to honor what they agreed to?

---

OT but similar....

I don't care much for NY. Far too many idiots here. And stupid laws and regulations. To many lefties running the show (those demands) and making it a worse and worse place to live. It's extremely costly, the weather being on and off for as long as I lived, pretty much sucks. Too populated for my taste. I wonder.... I wonder if I should complain to the governor, maybe get me a free place built somewhere upstate, Adirondacks maybe a little closer? And then when Dems get their way, I'll sit back and get "paid" because I don't want to work.

The life, the utopia! :laugh:

I do wonder if it’s a generational thing. Generally, our parents pushed us to work hard and take nothing for granted. Basically, to earn everything from your pay to a trophy. I think we as parents kind of mucked things up, and our kids expect to enter the work force as VPs. Again, generally. Not everyone did so.

[SassyLady]

Out of all of your positions in your time - how many of them did you accept positions, and then demand a larger salary down the road? Demand less hours? Make demands of anything really?


Here's what I did at one position ... after 6 months I was given 20% increase. 6 months later they wanted to give me another 20% increase. Instead, I negotiated an increase in PTO and bonuses (so, yes I guess you could say I changed original agreement regarding benefits). Had to explain that they would be better off because 20% increase meant we both had to pay more taxes. That's how my yearly raises went thereafter.

However, no matter how much PTO I had, I never took it during busy season. I've always treated my positions as if I was a vested owner. So, never had mindset of trying to take advantage of company.

However, I've also owned two companies so I've worked both sides of the fence.

[SassyLady]

I do wonder if it’s a generational thing. Generally, our parents pushed us to work hard and take nothing for granted. Basically, to earn everything from your pay to a trophy. I think we as parents kind of mucked things up, and our kids expect to enter the work force as VPs. Again, generally. Not everyone did so.

Well, Abbey, I totally screwed up. My daughter is a full time stay at home mom of 3 and she works harder than I did working outside home and getting degree at night school while raising 3 kids.

However, before she was stay at home mom she worked 8 hours as Admin Assistant, left work to play on softball team and after that went to work as bartender for 4-5 hrs.. She said that was easier than being a SAH mom.

[Abbey Marie]

Well, Abbey, I totally screwed up. My daughter is a full time stay at home mom of 3 and she works harder than I did working outside home and getting degree at night school while raising 3 kids.

However, before she was stay at home mom she worked 8 hours as Admin Assistant, left work to play on softball team and after that went to work as bartender for 4-5 hrs.. She said that was easier than being a SAH mom.

I think that not surpringly, you, Kath and I did things a little differently. :beer:

[STTAB]

Well, Abbey, I totally screwed up. My daughter is a full time stay at home mom of 3 and she works harder than I did working outside home and getting degree at night school while raising 3 kids.

However, before she was stay at home mom she worked 8 hours as Admin Assistant, left work to play on softball team and after that went to work as bartender for 4-5 hrs.. She said that was easier than being a SAH mom.

I've been a stay at home dad since retiring while my wife earns the small bucks . Let me tell you, anyone who says it isn't a job doesn't know what they are talking about (Im talking about if you do it correctly of course , being part of your child's life , cleaning house, cooking, that sort of thing, not a SAH who has a nanny and a maid LOL)

The laundry alone at my house would kill most people.

[Elessar]

My last position, before I retired was a GS-11. With COLA, base salary was
just over $33 an hour, but we had to account for 40 hours over a two week time span.

Sometimes with schedules, I would fall short of that 40 hour requirement. So I would
fill that in with OES meetings or unit visitations or daywork to review cases and update
the Geographic Locator for the AOR that I wrote.

Our overtime or night shift pay was time and a quarter. Holidays was time and a half, whether
worked or not. It was in the contract. I usually worked the holidays so staff with wives and kids
could be home with them: Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years Eve/Day, Easter, and 4th of July.

[Gunny]

Well, Abbey, I totally screwed up. My daughter is a full time stay at home mom of 3 and she works harder than I did working outside home and getting degree at night school while raising 3 kids.

However, before she was stay at home mom she worked 8 hours as Admin Assistant, left work to play on softball team and after that went to work as bartender for 4-5 hrs.. She said that was easier than being a SAH mom.Anybody that thinks being a stay at home anything has never been one. Was a LOT easier raising my daughter by myself when I could escape to work as a Marine than it is babysitting my grandson all day.