overtime rule change?

[Highmark]

You rather have extra staff on hand to take up the slack when people are gone, pay OT for people to fill the vacancy or pay ot for people to catch up when they get back or before they go.   Giving more time off IS NOT a financial benefit to most companies.  

Edited May 3, 2017 by Highmark

[02sled]

33 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

For some they would get a bump added to pensions and such.

In our case it would be added pension contribution from the employer, increased contribution to the health spending credits as part of the benefits program and any bonus was paid as a percentage of total income

[BOHICA]

11 minutes ago, Anler said:

It differs per the various unions but fringes are paid per hour. And some get corresponding increments in benefits with overtime. So for time and half they would get the benny and half. 

But like I said, if it didnt benefit the employer why would they offer it? Its a significant savings. For us it is. 

Cause employees want it and it doesn't cost any less or any extra.  If anything it cost the employer more in the long run...  why cause employer pays the employee any retirements (SS, pension, 401k) plus any employee taxes the employer is responsible for, health insurance, etc cause those are based all base pay.  Also an accumulation of PTO/vacation/sick  will still occur under comp time.

so you give a guy 1 month of comp time 4 weeks off for around 100 hours of OT worked,  you lose 1 month of productivity but you still pay everything for having the worker not at work for a month.  Everything....  medical, social security, retirement, any employee taxes etc etc etc and that employee does absolutely no work, makes you no money for that time.

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

You rather have extra staff on hand to take up when people are gone, pay OT for people to fill the vacancy or pay ot for people to catch up when they get back or before they go.   Giving more time off IS NOT a financial benefit to most companies.  

I disagree. I give my union employees paid days off. Out of my pocket not per contract or anything. Its a perk I offer for my top talent. I can finagle the hours,bennies and W/C to make it benefit myself. Just like offering comp time instead of overtime would save me. So sure I would like to offer that. Just saying if someone is agreeable to the comp time that is their business but in the end this saves business money. Which i like.  

[AKIQPilot]

3 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Cause employees want it and it doesn't cost any less or any extra.  If anything it cost the employer more in the long run...  why cause employer pays the employee any retirements (SS, pension, 401k) plus any employee taxes the employer is responsible for, health insurance, etc cause those are based all base pay.  Also an accumulation of PTO/vacation/sick  will still occur under comp time.

so you give a guy 1 month of comp time 4 weeks off for around 100 hours of OT worked,  you lose 1 month of productivity but you still pay everything for having the worker not at work for a month.  Everything....  medical, social security, retirement, any employee taxes etc etc etc and that employee does absolutely no work, makes you no money for that time.

Exactly.  I fail o see how this is a boon for the employer.  

[Anler]

4 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Cause employees want it and it doesn't cost any less or any extra.  If anything it cost the employer more in the long run...  why cause employer pays the employee any retirements (SS, pension, 401k) plus any employee taxes the employer is responsible for, health insurance, etc cause those are based all base pay.  Also an accumulation of PTO/vacation/sick  will still occur under comp time.

so you give a guy 1 month of comp time 4 weeks off for around 100 hours of OT worked,  you lose 1 month of productivity but you still pay everything for having the worker not at work for a month.  Everything....  medical, social security, retirement, any employee taxes etc etc etc and that employee does absolutely no work, makes you no money for that time.

Well thats not what i am saying at all. I am referring to offering comp time (meaning hours paid at straight time) in substitution for overtime (meaning X1.5 wages). Trust me, it is a significant savings for me. My labor pool can run over 100 guys. I can find someone to full in, we do it everyday.

 

Let me go on the record as some of you want to argue with me for the sake of arguing with me. I have no problem with this. This would save me quite a bit of money. 

[Anler]

3 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

Exactly.  I fail o see how this is a boon for the employer.  

Thats because you are not looking at it from the employers perspective. 

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

I disagree. I give my union employees paid days off. Out of my pocket not per contract or anything. Its a perk I offer for my top talent. I can finagle the hours,bennies and W/C to make it benefit myself. Just like offering comp time instead of overtime would save me. So sure I would like to offer that. Just saying if someone is agreeable to the comp time that is their business but in the end this saves business money. Which i like.  

I disagree.   Just how do you benefit yourself?   If the work needs to be done you pay existing staff OT to do it or you carry enough extra to cover it.   If you don't have the staff to cover it and lose a job that is a loss.   PTO is not as big as cost saver as you think when you look at all the details that go into it.

We have to carry extra personal or balance it with loss in productivity.   If I have a 7 station assembly line and a guy takes 2 weeks off I have to have extra people to fill in, or the line slows down or the stations around him pick up the work and everything slows down and we might have to go to OT to get the work done on time.   You have to balance it all out but in the end its costly.   

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

I disagree.   Just how do you benefit yourself?   If the work needs to be done you pay existing staff OT to do it or you carry enough extra to cover it.   If you don't have the staff to cover it and lose a job that is a loss.   PTO is not as big as cost saver as you think when you look at all the details that go into it.

We have to carry extra personal or balance it with loss in productivity.   If I have a 7 station assembly line and a guy takes 2 weeks off I have to have extra people to fill in, or the line slows down or the stations around him pick up the work and everything slows down and we might have to go to OT to get the work done on time.   You have to balance it all out but in the end its costly.   

Trust me dude, I know how this works. And I know how my costs are calculated. I can make this benefit real easy. I bet I could save over $100,000 a year in wages, taxes, w/c and fringes. And for me thats alot. Our direct hourly COST for regular time work is $80.00 per hour. X1.5 is about $110.00. And we have several work codes that carry different comp rates. If someone is taking a day off I am not paying the highest labor code rate. 

[AKIQPilot]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I disagree.   Just how do you benefit yourself?   If the work needs to be done you pay existing staff OT to do it or you carry enough extra to cover it.   If you don't have the staff to cover it and lose a job that is a loss.   PTO is not as big as cost saver as you think when you look at all the details that go into it.

We have to carry extra personal or balance it with loss in productivity.   If I have a 7 station assembly line and a guy takes 2 weeks off I have to have extra people to fill in, or the line slows down or the stations around him pick up the work and everything slows down and we might have to go to OT to get the work done on time.   You have to balance it all out but in the end its costly.   

And, if there are times when the line traditionally slows down you can work with the team and find an employee or two who may be interested in taking some of their PTO.  The added flexibility for the employee and employer seem like a win win.  

[AKIQPilot]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

Trust me dude, I know how this works. And I know how my costs are calculated. I can make this benefit real easy. I bet I could save over $100,000 a year in wages, taxes, w/c and fringes. And for me thats alot. Our direct hourly COST for regular time work is $80.00 per hour. X1.5 is about $110.00. And we have several work codes that carry different comp rates. If someone is taking a day off I am not paying the highest labor code rate. 

OK all fare enough but how does this proposal hurt the employee?  

[Highmark]

5 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

Exactly.  I fail o see how this is a boon for the employer.  

Plus the extra worker to fill the gap or you need existing workers to work OT to fill in.  

[Anler]

1 minute ago, AKIQPilot said:

OK all fare enough but how does this proposal hurt the employee?  

Scenario 1.: Lets say the company needs someone to work overtime. They have 6 workers that can do the work. They offer the 6, "Hey does anyone want to work overtime for comp time?" if one of the 6 says, "yes" then nobody is going to get overtime pay because someone said they will do it for comp time. So as in the past someone who normally got x1.5 now they have to compete for comp time. So if a regular employee typically got an extra $10,000 a year in overtime pay they could essentially not get that anymore. 

Scenario 2: Employer does not offer overtime. Company policy is now all extra hours are to be paid in comp time. And if you dont use it by the end of the year, you lose it. There are many people who just go to work everyday. My dad is one of those people. So in this scenario the company loses nothing and gains everything. 

Just 2 scenarios. 

[Highmark]

8 minutes ago, Anler said:

Trust me dude, I know how this works. And I know how my costs are calculated. I can make this benefit real easy. I bet I could save over $100,000 a year in wages, taxes, w/c and fringes. And for me thats alot. Our direct hourly COST for regular time work is $80.00 per hour. X1.5 is about $110.00. And we have several work codes that carry different comp rates. If someone is taking a day off I am not paying the highest labor code rate. 

So who do you fill in with while they are gone?

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

Plus the extra worker to fill the gap or you need existing workers to work OT to fill in.  

No you dont. Its called scheduling.  

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

So who do you fill in with while they are gone?

Someone else... We do it everyday. 

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

Someone else... We do it everyday. 

Yep and your paying their regular time plus the time off for the guy on Vacation.   That or you're losing business.   Just because you push it out doesn't mean there's not a cost to it.    Damn brah.  

[Highmark]

3 minutes ago, Anler said:

Scenario 1.: Lets say the company needs someone to work overtime. They have 6 workers that can do the work. They offer the 6, "Hey does anyone want to work overtime for comp time?" if one of the 6 says, "yes" then nobody is going to get overtime pay because someone said they will do it for comp time. So as in the past someone who normally got x1.5 now they have to compete for comp time. So if a regular employee typically got an extra $10,000 a year in overtime pay they could essentially not get that anymore. 

Scenario 2: Employer does not offer overtime. Company policy is now all extra hours are to be paid in comp time. And if you dont use it by the end of the year, you lose it. There are many people who just go to work everyday. My dad is one of those people. So in this scenario the company loses nothing and gains everything. 

Just 2 scenarios. 

I though the bill said in 13 months it must be paid in full including the OT as that is how much time off that is allowed.  

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

Yep and your paying their regular time plus the time off for the guy on Vacation.   That or you're losing business.   Just because you push it out doesn't mean there's not a cost to it.    Damn brah.  

I am paying straight time instead of overtime. Trust me dude, this is what i do. Been doing this for 17 years. the goal is always to stay out of overtime. My crews run around the clock and scheduling is always a chore. Jobs get shut down, work areas get changed, people dont show up, scope of work changes, etc.... We adapt. But as usual everybody else here knows more about my job than I do. 

[AKIQPilot]

4 minutes ago, Anler said:

Scenario 1.: Lets say the company needs someone to work overtime. They have 6 workers that can do the work. They offer the 6, "Hey does anyone want to work overtime for comp time?" if one of the 6 says, "yes" then nobody is going to get overtime pay because someone said they will do it for comp time. So as in the past someone who normally got x1.5 now they have to compete for comp time. So if a regular employee typically got an extra $10,000 a year in overtime pay they could essentially not get that anymore. 

Scenario 2: Employer does not offer overtime. Company policy is now all extra hours are to be paid in comp time. And if you dont use it by the end of the year, you lose it. There are many people who just go to work everyday. My dad is one of those people. So in this scenario the company loses nothing and gains everything. 

Just 2 scenarios. 

OK well scenario 2 does not fit into the proposed legislation.  The legislation has a sunset clause and if the employee doesn't take his PTO he gets paid for it at the OT rate.  

Scenario 1. is legit but the employee who takes the deferred PTO still wins.  The other employees don't lose anything.  

[Anler]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

I though the bill said in 13 months it must be paid in full including the OT as that is how much time off that is allowed.  

Not sure what the benefit is in that.  

[02sled]

22 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

Exactly.  I fail o see how this is a boon for the employer.  

Most business has slow, busy and very busy periods and they are often seasonally related. Staffing levels to account for those fluctuations can be a challenge. If you can maintain your staffing numbers and expenses at a constant rather than having to lay people off when quiet, pay O/T when busy, avoid having to interview, hire and train those who are laid off and don't come back when it becomes busy again is all a financial benefit. Then you aren't paying increased pension contributions and other regulatory $'s on an increased employee income either. It can be a win for both employer and employee.

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

I am paying straight time instead of overtime. Trust me dude, this is what i do. Been doing this for 17 years. the goal is always to stay out of overtime. My crews run around the clock and scheduling is always a chore. Jobs get shut down, work areas get changed, people dont show up, scope of work changes, etc.... We adapt. But as usual everybody else here knows more about my job than I do. 

And I've been doing it for 25 years.  You are ignoring the fact that you probably have extra workers to handle the schedule changes.   That comes at a cost one way or another.

[AKIQPilot]

Just now, Anler said:

Not sure what the benefit is in that.  

The benefit is that the employee can take the PTO in cash and still work if the PTO isn't used in 13 months.  IT's a benefit to the employee.  

[Anler]

Just now, AKIQPilot said:

OK well scenario 2 does not fit into the proposed legislation.  The legislation has a sunset clause and if the employee doesn't take his PTO he gets paid for it at the OT rate.  

Scenario 1. is legit but the employee who takes the deferred PTO still wins.  The other employees don't lose anything.  

Like i said, if the PTO is getting paid out at time and half what is the benefit? Why not just pay the x1.5? The employer doesnt have to pay it til later? The only reason I could see actually needing a law is that the IRS doesnt wait for its money. If it was a comp time situation you could wait to pay the payroll taxes at the time when the PTO is taken. Otherwise you would have to pay it at the time the OT was worked. So really there is no savings, the only benefit I see is protection for IRS penalties.