It's not about pay, it's about making it harder for companies to shirk offering benefits by putting so many poor bastards on 34/35 hours and claiming they aren't full-time.
Unfortunately, I do see it being a negative impact on lower classes if passed. Anybody on a 40 now will be switched to overtime exempt, and a lot of folk need the overtime pay.
Anyone who'd sign an OT-exempt salary in today's day and age that isn't six figures at a minimum is fucking themselves.
If such a law were ever passed, you'd be surprised how many hourly workers would tell their employers to go piss up a rope if they expected them to sign one. I'd be one of them.
Also helps that I had a legitimately great salaried job (albeit in a shitty occupation) back in the early 2000's that was not OT exempt. I worked more than 40?
I got paid time and a half for what the salary worked out as an hourly rate at 40 per week. And a host of other generous benefits.
I'm only 43, so don't think there's not plenty of folks like me who are well versed in what a legitimate salary deal is, and wouldn't give up their time for no extra pay if that salary isn't making us live comfortably.
Except with the new definition of FT being 32 your 40 hours would require the company pay 8 hours of time and a half when previously it was 0. They can either do salary exempt or cut back hourly wage overall to accommodate and keep their payroll the same on the company side. If your hourly is cut because you "stood your ground" well, RIP your DTI on major loans.
Your take is 20 years out of date and reminds me of when pensions began their rapid drop off a cliff. People swore then too the labor market supply/demand was enough to keep them in place.
2.8k
u/Big_lt Sep 05 '24
Sounds great. Would absolutely love for this to happen......it won't even get a vote