Anonymouse

exempt employees are usually people like commissioned sales people who
don't have fixed work hours.

for example an exempt employee that decides to leave at lunch to take
care of personal business doesn't get paid less or use a vacation day.

Icono Clast wrote:

    >> rk wrote:
    >>> Yup, in the US, for a variety of aerospace corporations and
    >>> organizations and one instrumentation company. On the other hand,
    >>> all of those positions were "exempt," meaning they were exempt
    >>> from wage and salary laws.
    >
    >
    > The law is the law. There should be neither exemptions nor exceptions.
    > If they want independent contractors, fine. If they want employees,
    > abide by the law!
    >
    >> Most significant impact of that is on overtime pay (or lack thereof).
    >
    >
    > Zacktly!
    >
    >
    > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    >
    >> "professional" staff does not get overtime pay.
    >
    >
    > Probably against the law. If it isn't, it oughtta be!
    >
    >> However, unlike some firms, ours DOES pay "straight time" for the
    >> extra hours or (IMO more welcome) allows us to accrue it as "comp"
    >> time, to be taken at other times of year, when we're not so busy.
    >
    >
    > Comp time is fine if it's credited at nine minutes for each six minutes
    > of overtime work, etc. [Please see
    > <http://geocities.com/iconoc/Overtime.html>]
    >
    >> ....Although it's often hard to find the occasion to use it
    >
    >
    > Thus making it an employer con; i.e., a way to screw its employees out
    > of EARNings!
    >
    >> and still keep one's work-load up to date.
    >
    >
    > If the workload is too great, the number of workers is too few! You are
    > effectively denying an unemployed person the opportunity to work
    > alongside you. Your employer is saving a bundle at your expense.
    > Although I love to **** (duh-uh), I don't like getting screwed and I
    > hate seeing others get screwed.
    >
    >> (I have over 200 hours accrued, our managing partner is beginning to
    >> make noises about my using some of it, yet it is he for whom no time
    >> I choose is the right time!)
    >
    >
    > I hope you do. I implore you to do so. It is time that you have earned;
    > it belongs to you!
    >
    > My union contract prohibits the non-use and/or accrual of vacation time.
    > If you have not taken your vacation, you will be prohibited to work. For
    > example, had I not taken my five weeks' vacation by November 28 (this
    > year), I would have been forced to take it. Had I been permitted to
    > work, the employer would have been forced to pay double time (i.e., the
    > vacation pay plus the regular pay; unfair to the employer). If I took
    > the vacation time and worked, it would have been for nothing; unfair to me!
    >
    > When I took nine week vacations, I started the four-week vacation earned
    > last year in November, the four-week vacation time earned this year in
    > January, and had 4.5 holidays (ThanksGiving Thursday and Friday,
    > Christmas Eve [the half], Christmas Day, and New Year's Day].
    >
    >
    > JohnT wrote:
    >
    >> while an exempt employee might not be entitled to overtime pay for
    >> working over the standard, they wouldn't lose pay for working less
    >> than a full day.
    >
    >
    > Didn't you mean to say "legally entitled"? And what is "the standard"? I
    > agreed to give my last employer a full 7.5 hours of work and got paid
    > for it. If I left early, I was not paid for the time I wasn't there. If
    > I worked overtime, I got paid overtime. Not paying me when not there was
    > fair to the employer. Paying me extra for being there when I oughtn't've
    > been was fair to me.
    >
    >> Many employers also provide additional pay of some type for overtime
    >> work. This can sometimes be higher than even the 1 1/2 times rate that
    >> may be required by law for non-exempt employees.
    >
    >
    > There are countless good employers out there who understand why they
    > should treat their employees fairly and how to do so. As a co-worker,
    > who became an employer, once said to me: "There wouldn't be asshole
    > unions if there weren't asshole employers". He did many good things for
    > his employees, far and above what was contracted, because they were the
    > right thing to do.
    > __________________________________________________ ___________
    > A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union!
    > http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
    > ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

--

>>--> NEW COBRAY/LEINAD DERRINGER SIDEPLATES <--<<
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=7119996682

EvelynVogtGamble

JohnT wrote:

    > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>rk wrote:
    >>>Yup, in the US, for a variety of aerospace corporations and organizations and
    >>>one instrumentation company. On the other hand, all of those positions were
    >>>"exempt," meaning they were exempt from wage and salary laws. Most
    >>>significant impact of that is on overtime pay (or lack thereof).
    >>I can relate to that! I work for a small accounting firm, and "professional"
    >>staff does not get overtime pay. However, unlike some firms, ours DOES pay
    >>"straight time" for the extra hours or (IMO more welcome) allows us to accrue
    >>it as "comp" time, to be taken at other times of year, when we're not so busy.
    >>....Although it's often hard to find the occasion to use it, and still keep
    >>one's work-load up to date. (I have over 200 hours accrued, our managing
    >>partner is beginning to make noises about my using some of it, yet it is he
    >>for whom no time I choose is the right time!)
    >
    >
    > How can anyone be "exempt" from Laws. It is, surely, a total contradiction. I
    > rather suspect that in the case quoted above there is no Statute requiring
    > payment of overtime hours. If there is, then surely non-payment of such hours is
    > actionable in the Courts.

Exactly! "Professional" staff is not covered by those laws.
That was fine, when "professional" implied highly paid.
However, the rules have been relaxed to cover most
"salaried" employees, regardless of the SIZE of the salary.

    >
    > JohnT
    >
    >

EvelynVogtGamble

Icono Clast wrote:


    > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    >
    >> "professional" staff does not get overtime pay.
    >
    >
    > Probably against the law. If it isn't, it oughtta be!

I agree it OUGHT to be, but one disgruntled former employee
reported us to the Labor Commission, who sent an
investigator to interview the employees. The "support"
staff must be paid time and a half for overtime (they always
have been), but "professional" staff (meaning accountants -
whether CPA's or not) are not covered by that law. We count
ourselves lucky that we at least get "straight" time or
compensatory time off for all those extra hours during "tax
season" (which the law does not require).
    >
    > Comp time is fine if it's credited at nine minutes for each six minutes
    > of overtime work, etc.

That's how it's credited to "support" staff - the rest of us
are fortunate to get the time at all!

    >
    >> ....Although it's often hard to find the occasion to use it
    >
    >
    > Thus making it an employer con; i.e., a way to screw its employees out
    > of EARNings!

Well, yeah - but after seeing what a mess some of my fellow
employees have made of my files, when they've been
temporarily assigned to handle them, I'd rather do the work
myself! (Not everyone believes in leaving a paper trail,
even when working with someone else's clients, making their
work very hard to follow - which is how mistakes happen.)
    >
    > If the workload is too great, the number of workers is too few! You are
    > effectively denying an unemployed person the opportunity to work
    > alongside you. Your employer is saving a bundle at your expense.

It's plain to see you're not an accountant! It just doesn't
work that way - you can't simply hire people off the streets
(or from a temp agency) to take up the slack. We are each
assigned a reasonable number of clients - the work load
varies depending upon the client's requirements, which vary.
However, a good way to lose clients is for them to
encounter a new face across the desk, every time they come
in to see their accountant.
    >
    >> (I have over 200 hours accrued, our managing partner is beginning to
    >> make noises about my using some of it, yet it is he for whom no time
    >> I choose is the right time!)

    > My union contract prohibits the non-use and/or accrual of vacation time.
    > If you have not taken your vacation, you will be prohibited to work. For
    > example, had I not taken my five weeks' vacation by November 28 (this
    > year), I would have been forced to take it. Had I been permitted to
    > work, the employer would have been forced to pay double time (i.e., the
    > vacation pay plus the regular pay; unfair to the employer). If I took
    > the vacation time and worked, it would have been for nothing; unfair to me!

The operative words, there, are "union contract" - I don't
think there IS a union for accountants (and I suspect they'd
be actively discouraged from forming one).
    >
    > When I took nine week vacations, I started the four-week vacation earned
    > last year in November, the four-week vacation time earned this year in
    > January, and had 4.5 holidays (ThanksGiving Thursday and Friday,
    > Christmas Eve [the half], Christmas Day, and New Year's Day].

We get ten holidays, but cannot take more than two weeks
vacation at a time (although I've stretched it to three for
a couple of my European jaunts).

Jeff Hacker

"Icono Clast" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1103714314.78310f12fe9eac3b29af04f2b4f1ac2f@t eranews...
    >> rk wrote:
    >>> Yup, in the US, for a variety of aerospace corporations and
    >>> organizations and one instrumentation company. On the other hand,
    >>> all of those positions were "exempt," meaning they were exempt
    >>> from wage and salary laws.
    > The law is the law. There should be neither exemptions nor exceptions.
    > If they want independent contractors, fine. If they want employees,
    > abide by the law!
    >> Most significant impact of that is on overtime pay (or lack thereof).
    > Zacktly!
    > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    >> "professional" staff does not get overtime pay.
    > Probably against the law. If it isn't, it oughtta be!
    >> However, unlike some firms, ours DOES pay "straight time" for the extra
    >> hours or (IMO more welcome) allows us to accrue it as "comp" time, to be
    >> taken at other times of year, when we're not so busy.
    > Comp time is fine if it's credited at nine minutes for each six minutes
    > of overtime work, etc. [Please see
    > <http://geocities.com/iconoc/Overtime.html>]
    >> ....Although it's often hard to find the occasion to use it
    > Thus making it an employer con; i.e., a way to screw its employees out
    > of EARNings!
    >> and still keep one's work-load up to date.
    > If the workload is too great, the number of workers is too few! You are
    > effectively denying an unemployed person the opportunity to work
    > alongside you. Your employer is saving a bundle at your expense.
    > Although I love to **** (duh-uh), I don't like getting screwed and I
    > hate seeing others get screwed.
    >> (I have over 200 hours accrued, our managing partner is beginning to
    >> make noises about my using some of it, yet it is he for whom no time
    >> I choose is the right time!)
    > I hope you do. I implore you to do so. It is time that you have earned;
    > it belongs to you!
    > My union contract prohibits the non-use and/or accrual of vacation time.
    > If you have not taken your vacation, you will be prohibited to work. For
    > example, had I not taken my five weeks' vacation by November 28 (this
    > year), I would have been forced to take it. Had I been permitted to
    > work, the employer would have been forced to pay double time (i.e., the
    > vacation pay plus the regular pay; unfair to the employer). If I took
    > the vacation time and worked, it would have been for nothing; unfair to
    > me!
    > When I took nine week vacations, I started the four-week vacation earned
    > last year in November, the four-week vacation time earned this year in
    > January, and had 4.5 holidays (ThanksGiving Thursday and Friday,
    > Christmas Eve [the half], Christmas Day, and New Year's Day].
    > JohnT wrote:
    >> while an exempt employee might not be entitled to overtime pay for
    >> working over the standard, they wouldn't lose pay for working less than a
    >> full day.
    > Didn't you mean to say "legally entitled"? And what is "the standard"? I
    > agreed to give my last employer a full 7.5 hours of work and got paid
    > for it. If I left early, I was not paid for the time I wasn't there. If
    > I worked overtime, I got paid overtime. Not paying me when not there was
    > fair to the employer. Paying me extra for being there when I oughtn't've
    > been was fair to me.
    >> Many employers also provide additional pay of some type for overtime
    >> work. This can sometimes be higher than even the 1 1/2 times rate that
    >> may be required by law for non-exempt employees.
    > There are countless good employers out there who understand why they
    > should treat their employees fairly and how to do so. As a co-worker,
    > who became an employer, once said to me: "There wouldn't be asshole
    > unions if there weren't asshole employers". He did many good things for
    > his employees, far and above what was contracted, because they were the
    > right thing to do.
    > __________________________________________________ ___________
    > A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union!
    > http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
    > ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Jeff Hacker

"Icono Clast" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1103714314.78310f12fe9eac3b29af04f2b4f1ac2f@t eranews...
    >> rk wrote:
    >>> Yup, in the US, for a variety of aerospace corporations and
    >>> organizations and one instrumentation company. On the other hand,
    >>> all of those positions were "exempt," meaning they were exempt
    >>> from wage and salary laws.
    > The law is the law. There should be neither exemptions nor exceptions.
    > If they want independent contractors, fine. If they want employees,
    > abide by the law!

U.S. law basically defines "Exempt" employees as employees hired to do a
particular job - they are not hourly employees, and, therefore, are not
entitled to overtime. Non-exempt employees ARE paid by the hour.

This is not a difference between independent contractors and employees, but
rather generally divides between management and non-management types. There
are some exceptions, such as management employees whose jobs typically may
require different shifts, hours, and times, and who therefore are paid based
on an hourly wage and are entitled to overtime.

Overall, the system does work well.



    >> Most significant impact of that is on overtime pay (or lack thereof).
    > Zacktly!
    > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    >> "professional" staff does not get overtime pay.
    > Probably against the law. If it isn't, it oughtta be!
    >> However, unlike some firms, ours DOES pay "straight time" for the extra
    >> hours or (IMO more welcome) allows us to accrue it as "comp" time, to be
    >> taken at other times of year, when we're not so busy.
    > Comp time is fine if it's credited at nine minutes for each six minutes
    > of overtime work, etc. [Please see
    > <http://geocities.com/iconoc/Overtime.html>]
    >> ....Although it's often hard to find the occasion to use it
    > Thus making it an employer con; i.e., a way to screw its employees out
    > of EARNings!
    >> and still keep one's work-load up to date.
    > If the workload is too great, the number of workers is too few! You are
    > effectively denying an unemployed person the opportunity to work
    > alongside you. Your employer is saving a bundle at your expense.
    > Although I love to **** (duh-uh), I don't like getting screwed and I
    > hate seeing others get screwed.
    >> (I have over 200 hours accrued, our managing partner is beginning to
    >> make noises about my using some of it, yet it is he for whom no time
    >> I choose is the right time!)
    > I hope you do. I implore you to do so. It is time that you have earned;
    > it belongs to you!
    > My union contract prohibits the non-use and/or accrual of vacation time.
    > If you have not taken your vacation, you will be prohibited to work. For
    > example, had I not taken my five weeks' vacation by November 28 (this
    > year), I would have been forced to take it. Had I been permitted to
    > work, the employer would have been forced to pay double time (i.e., the
    > vacation pay plus the regular pay; unfair to the employer). If I took
    > the vacation time and worked, it would have been for nothing; unfair to
    > me!
    > When I took nine week vacations, I started the four-week vacation earned
    > last year in November, the four-week vacation time earned this year in
    > January, and had 4.5 holidays (ThanksGiving Thursday and Friday,
    > Christmas Eve [the half], Christmas Day, and New Year's Day].
    > JohnT wrote:
    >> while an exempt employee might not be entitled to overtime pay for
    >> working over the standard, they wouldn't lose pay for working less than a
    >> full day.
    > Didn't you mean to say "legally entitled"? And what is "the standard"? I
    > agreed to give my last employer a full 7.5 hours of work and got paid
    > for it. If I left early, I was not paid for the time I wasn't there. If
    > I worked overtime, I got paid overtime. Not paying me when not there was
    > fair to the employer. Paying me extra for being there when I oughtn't've
    > been was fair to me.
    >> Many employers also provide additional pay of some type for overtime
    >> work. This can sometimes be higher than even the 1 1/2 times rate that
    >> may be required by law for non-exempt employees.
    > There are countless good employers out there who understand why they
    > should treat their employees fairly and how to do so. As a co-worker,
    > who became an employer, once said to me: "There wouldn't be asshole
    > unions if there weren't asshole employers". He did many good things for
    > his employees, far and above what was contracted, because they were the
    > right thing to do.
    > __________________________________________________ ___________
    > A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union!
    > http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
    > ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Deep Frayed Morgues

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:28:32 +0100, Max Mustermann
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Cisco troll/asshole/netkook/pedophile Michael Voight "Merry Christmas
    ><[email protected]>" trolled:
    >>JohnT wrote:
    >> >
    >>> How can anyone be "exempt" from Laws. It is, surely, a total
    >>> contradiction. I
    >>> rather suspect that in the case quoted above there is no Statute requiring
    >>> payment of overtime hours. If there is, then surely non-payment of
    >>> such hours is
    >>> actionable in the Courts.
    >>>
    >>> JohnT
    >>In the US, there are federal and state laws regarding overtime hours,
    >>and they have exemptions blah blah blah
    >None of which matters in your case, since you spend your day on the
    >job trolling usenet at your employer Cisco's expense. So what the
    >**** do you care about employment laws in the US, you're a leech, a
    >troll, a netkook, a pedophile who cruises the kiddie "pen pal"
    >newsgroups luring minors for sex......

Claiming the high moral ground on this one, Max?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Rod Speed

Icono Clast <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1103714313.9b822f870cf5444fb9013a39604c5665@t eranews...
    > Thom wrote:
    >> Icono Clast wrote:

    >>> Increase the Minimum Wage! Increase it to what? Ten percent of what's paid
    >>> to members of Congress.

    >> you bring up good points.

    > Thank you. They're the same points I've been making, fruitlessly, for longer
    > than thirty years.

    >> Sould congress persons wages be based on a multiple of the average or
    >> mean average wage of Americans? Should it be capped at some point?

    > Neither. The Congressional and the Minimum wages should be inextricably
    > locked together at a ratio of 10:1. Thus neither will ever be too low,
    > too high, nor, and these are the points, unfair nor probably unlivable.

Just another mindlessly simplistic silly lefty proposal.

And that is the real reason the loopy left gets so few votes.

Dgs

Icono Clast wrote:

    > Thom wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe its because up till recently a nice house was only twice the
    >> yearly average wage.
    >
    > Thrice. Now, around the country, it's running five and more. Here, it's
    > closer to seven.
    >
    > Today it was reported that 4/3000 of counties in the USA have
    > one-bedroom rents that can be afforded by a minimum wage worker.

So? Most minimum-wage workers either live at home with parents, or
there is more than one minimum-wage worker in the househould, so rent
is "affordable."

BTW, where's the cite for this "it was reported?"

Rents are determined by the free market in capitalist societies. The
minimum wage is determined by governmental fiat.

    > All
    > sorts programs to help those people live in the 2,996 counties they
    > can't afford were suggested. All sorts of programs but the only thing
    > that could possibly approach a solution:
    > Increase the Minimum Wage!

That isn't the only thing that could possibly approach a solution.

For a guy who had the foresight to invest in a few properties, your
understanding of the free market really sucks.

    > Increase it to what? Ten percent of what's
    > paid to members of Congress. When I first looked into it, they were
    > getting eleven times the Minimum Wage. Now they're getting significantly
    > more.

Congresscritters get $158,100 per year. That's $76 per hour - assuming
a standard "work year" of 2080 hours. Many congresscritters put in
considerably more hours than that doing their jobs. Some don't.

Minimum wage varies. Federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. But
some states have higher minimums. In California, it's $6.75/hour.
In San Francisco, it's $8.50/hour. In Washington state, it's $7.16
per hour.

So while congresscritters get about 14.8 times the federally-
mandated minimum wage, they get 11.2 times California's minimum
wage, 8.9 times SF's minimum wage, and 10.6 times Washington state's
minium wage.

Your "significantly more" is a load of hooey. What's more, the minimum
wage is paid to a relatively small percentage of working folks. Most
make more than that. And the city with the highest minimum wage is also
the city with an absurd cost of housing. Are you really so clueless as
to think that paying minimum-wage workers 10% of a congressman's salary
is a remedy for that?

    > Those with the most power in our society are increasing their
    > income while ignoring those with the least power in our society.

Those with the most power in our society are the CEOs and executives at
the companies that hire and fire and pay wages to the people they
employ. Many of them make salaries well over 10 times that of the
congresscritter's salary. Why don't you demand that minimum wage be
10% of that?

    > It's
    > not only unAmerican, it also violates the professed values of every
    > major philosophy on Earth.

You're a major loon. The principles of free-market capitalism are in
no way violated by this. You're saying that free-market capitalism is
un-American? So, you won't have a problem with the state confiscating
all your real-estate investments?
--
dgs

The Real Bev

Thom wrote:

    > I see your too lazy to go to the website. Why would anyone use a
    > buggy MS product when they can get LINUX for free?

Because they can't get suitable drivers for quite a bit of
hardware/software. I run a win2K machine for scanning and taxes.

--
Cheers,
Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All bleeding eventually stops.

Thom

On , The Real Bev <[email protected]> wrote:

    >NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:59:24 MST
    >Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:56:37 -0800
    >Xref: news.melbpc.org.au soc.culture.usa:843267 alt.politics.bush:1906068 misc.consumers.frugal-living:243382 rec.travel.europe:344095 rec.travel.air:262077
    >Thom wrote:
    >> I see your too lazy to go to the website. Why would anyone use a
    >> buggy MS product when they can get LINUX for free?
    >Because they can't get suitable drivers for quite a bit of
    >hardware/software. I run a win2K machine for scanning and taxes.

I have only one thing my LINUX box can't address, my slide scanner.

THOM
    >--
    >Cheers,
    >Bev
    >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >All bleeding eventually stops.

Icono Clast

anonymouse wrote:
    > exempt employees are usually people like commissioned sales people
    > who don't have fixed work hours.

Or, effectively "independent contractors" as quoted below.

    > Icono Clast wrote:
    >> The law is the law. There should be neither exemptions nor
    >> exceptions. If they want independent contractors, fine. If they
    >> want employees, abide by the law!

    > Icono Clast wrote:
    >> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    >>> "professional" staff does not get overtime pay.
    >>
    >> Probably against the law. If it isn't, it oughtta be!
    >
    > I agree it OUGHT to be, but one disgruntled former employee reported
    > us to the Labor Commission, who sent an investigator to interview the
    > employees. The "support" staff must be paid time and a half for
    > overtime (they always have been), but "professional" staff (meaning
    > accountants - whether CPA's or not) are not covered by that law.

Then you should either get the law changed, refuse to work beyond your
scheduled times, or organize your fellow workers to demand that you get
equal treatment with your support staff.

    > We count ourselves lucky that we at least get "straight" time or
    > compensatory time off for all those extra hours during "tax season"
    > (which the law does not require).

In other words, you get that compensation at the discretion of your
employer, not because you've earned it. Your employer could easily
discontinue the practice.

    >> Comp time is fine if it's credited at nine minutes for each six
    >> minutes of overtime work, etc.
    >
    > That's how it's credited to "support" staff - the rest of us are
    > fortunate to get the time at all!

You use words such as "fortunate" and "lucky" that you're compensated
for your work. There's something wrong with that.

    >> an employer con; i.e., a way to screw its employees out of
    >> EARNings!
    >
    > Well, yeah - but after seeing what a mess some of my fellow employees
    > have made of my files, when they've been temporarily assigned to
    > handle them, I'd rather do the work myself!

Of course you would. So would I. I understand that. But the files that
got messed up are your employer's, not yours. It is your employer's
responsibility to ensure that they don't get messed up, not yours. If
you have to work beyond your regular hours to get those files back in
order, your employer should compensate you for his, not your, negligence.

    >> If the workload is too great, the number of workers is too few! You
    >> are effectively denying an unemployed person the opportunity to
    >> work alongside you. Your employer is saving a bundle at your
    >> expense.
    >
    > It's plain to see you're not an accountant! It just doesn't work
    > that way - you can't simply hire people off the streets (or from a
    > temp agency) to take up the slack. We are each assigned a reasonable
    > number of clients - the work load varies depending upon the client's
    > requirements, which vary.

That seems to contradict what you previously said. What can be done is
what's been done with you: hire qualified people and teach them how
things are done at your workplace to properly serve your clients. Not
long ago, perhaps in this thread, I commented that our employers paid us
about two months a year for doing nothing as there was no work. They
didn't lay us off because they feared losing us to other employers. They
knew we knew the work and how to please the customers, just as you.

    > However, a good way to lose clients is for them to encounter a new
    > face across the desk, every time they come in to see their
    > accountant.

Yes, I wouldn't like that. Just about the thickest file my CPA has is
mine. Not that I generate much paper but that I've been with him for so
long. Hummm. Thinking about it, I guess since the '60s.

    > The operative words, there, are "union contract" - I don't think
    > there IS a union for accountants

Form one! Call your local Teamsters or Communications Workers of America
or other major union for advice and help.

    > (and I suspect they'd be actively discouraged from forming one).

Of course! Employers hate unions because they represent the workers.
Unions strive to ensure fair compensation, benefits, and decent working
conditions while ensuring that businesses are profitable and can grow to
hire more workers. Employers who provide those things to content workers
probably abide by union contracts for their industries (many non-union
employers in my field do just that).

    > We get ten holidays, but cannot take more than two weeks vacation at
    > a time (although I've stretched it to three for a couple of my
    > European jaunts).

In other words, time that appears to belong to you really belongs to
your employer. What's the most common word, other than "Strike", on
picket signs? "Unfair!"


Jeff Hacker said:
    > U.S. law basically defines "Exempt" employees as employees hired to
    > do a particular job - they are not hourly employees, and, therefore,
    > are not entitled to overtime. Non-exempt employees ARE paid by the
    > hour.

And how are they paid? The employer and the person "hired to do a
particular job" negotiate and agree that the job shall be completed by a
time certain for an amount $ertain.

    > management and non-management types
    >
    > Overall, the system does work well.

Yes, it does. And it will as long as one of history's most successful
cons, that of convincing pink collar workers that they're some sort of
"professional" or low-level "management", continues unexposed.

And it will as long as there are people hired to work 7.5 hour shifts
who put in eighty-hour weeks. Sure, they might love their jobs more than
their homes and have more fun at work than elsewhere but that doesn't
excuse their employers from fairly compensating them for their time and
contributions to the business.


John T said:
    > "Professional" staff is not covered by those laws. That was fine,
    > when "professional" implied highly paid. However, the rules have been
    > relaxed to cover most "salaried" employees, regardless of the SIZE
    > of the salary.

That's what I meant.
__________________________________________________ ___________
A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union!
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Icono Clast

dgs wrote:
    > Icono Clast wrote:
    >> Today it was reported that 4/3000 of counties in the USA have
    >> one-bedroom rents that can be afforded by a minimum wage worker.
    >
    > So? Most minimum-wage workers either live at home with parents, or
    > there is more than one minimum-wage worker in the househould,

Irrelevant.

    > so rent is "affordable."

You seem to be saying that people should be paid according to what they
need rather than what the job is worth and being able to live on the
income earned.

So the single woman with no dependents doing the same job as I, with one
dependent, and you with two dependents, and the guy down the hall with
three dependents should be paid differently because their expenses
differ? That's what you seem to be saying. It makes no sense to me.

    > BTW, where's the cite for this "it was reported?"

GOTO http://www.npr.org/

    > Rents are determined by the free market in capitalist societies.

Yes, usually. In San Francisco we have a very fair Rent Control law that
works well.

    > The minimum wage is determined by governmental fiat.

Yes, but only the gods know upon what it's based. Here, to rent a single
room, not a one-bedroom apartment, with shared kitchen and bath is about
$600. One can eat for about $200. Transportation's about $50. Clothing
about $25. Entertainment about $100. That's $975 meaning pay, for 35
hours' work, of $1,220 or about $8.75 an hour. You state San Francisco's
Minimum Wage as "$8.50/hour", $35 a month short for a single room.

The cheapest 1-bedroom apartment I can find today is $1,250. Add food,
transportation, clothing, and entertainment to get $1,625, $1,870 pay or
$13.35 an hour. Not even close to the Minimum Wage.

    >> the only thing that could possibly approach a solution: Increase
    >> the Minimum Wage!

    > That isn't the only thing that could possibly approach a solution.

OK. Suggest another or three.

    > For a guy who had the foresight to invest in a few properties, your
    > understanding of the free market really sucks.
    >
    >> Increase it to what? Ten percent of what's paid to members of
    >> Congress. When I first looked into it, they were getting eleven
    >> times the Minimum Wage. Now they're getting significantly more.
    >
    > Congresscritters get $158,100 per year. That's $76 per hour -
    > assuming a standard "work year" of 2080 hours.

I assume a work year of 1,820 hours. $15,810 per year works out to $8.70
per hour. You state the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15 per hour.

    > Minimum wage varies.

Yes, but only the Congress can set the Federal Minimum Wage that applies
to all workers regardless of what expenses might be where they work and
live.

    > In California, it's $6.75/hour. In San Francisco, it's $8.50/hour. In
    > Washington state, it's $7.16 per hour.

None of those is enough to rent a single room, sharing kitchen and bath,
in San Francisco.

    > congresscritters get about 14.8 times the federally- mandated minimum
    > wage
    >
    > Your "significantly more" is a load of hooey.

No, according to your figures. I said when I first looked into it the
Congressional wage it was about eleven times the Minimum Wage. You say
that, today, it's 14.8 times. I think that's significantly more.

    > What's more, the minimum wage is paid to a relatively small
    > percentage of working folks.

Irrelevant.

    > Are you really so clueless as to think that paying minimum-wage
    > workers 10% of a congressman's salary is a remedy for that?

No, but it's a place to start. It might not be enough to live here, but
it would be in many other places. According to the report I heard, one
earning the Federal Minimum Wage can afford to live in a 1-bedroom
apartment in only four of the USA's 3,000 counties.

    >> Those with the most power in our society are increasing their
    >> income while ignoring those with the least power in our society.
    >
    > Those with the most power in our society are the CEOs and executives
    > at the companies that hire and fire and pay wages to the people they
    > employ. Many of them make salaries well over 10 times that of the
    > congresscritter's salary.

The owners of their companies, the shareholders, seem to be willing to
pay them so much. I think it's absurd. How could anyone be worth eleven
times the President's wage? Ten times? Maybe.

    > Why don't you demand that minimum wage be 10% of that?

Let's see, 10% of $20,000,000 is $2,000,000. That's $1,099 per hour. Not
practical. The Minimum Wage worker would have to work only two hours to
make a month's nut. Little would get done.

    >> It's not only unAmerican, it also violates the professed values of
    >> every major philosophy on Earth.
    >
    > You're a major loon.

Thank you.

    > The principles of free-market capitalism are in no way violated by
    > this.

Did someone say the are?

    > You're saying that free-market capitalism is un-American?

No, I'm not saying that, either. What I am saying is that I believe it's
unAmerican for workers to have a full time job that pays too little to
buy shelter, food, clothing, transportation, and entertainment.

    > So, you won't have a problem with the state confiscating all your
    > real-estate investments?

The relationship escapes me.
__________________________________________________ __________
A San Franciscan in (where else?) San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Rod Speed

Thom <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > The Real Bev <[email protected]> wrote
    >> Thom wrote:

    >>> I see your too lazy to go to the website. Why would anyone
    >>> use a buggy MS product when they can get LINUX for free?

    >> Because they can't get suitable drivers for quite a bit of
    >> hardware/software. I run a win2K machine for scanning and taxes.

    > I have only one thing my LINUX box can't address, my slide scanner.

You deficiencys are your problem, child.

Rod Speed

Icono Clast <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1103805305.a1eaedc1bed9648cf0041b3700bb6676@t eranews...
    > dgs wrote
    >> Icono Clast wrote

    >>> Today it was reported that 4/3000 of counties in the USA have one-bedroom
    >>> rents that can be afforded by a minimum wage worker.

    >> So? Most minimum-wage workers either live at home with parents, or there is
    >> more than one minimum-wage worker in the househould,

    > Irrelevant.

Lying again. Clearly that silly 4/3000 of
counties number is what is irrelevant.

    >> so rent is "affordable."

    > You seem to be saying that people should be paid according to what they need
    > rather than what the job is worth

Nope, he aint saying anything like that.

JUST that accomodation is quite possible for those on the minimum wage.

And there is no such animal as 'what the job is worth' anyway.

    > and being able to live on the income earned.

Most of those who get the minimum wage dont appear to be too dead.

    > So the single woman with no dependents doing the same job as I, with one
    > dependent, and you with two dependents, and the guy down the hall with three
    > dependents should be paid differently because their expenses differ?

Having fun thrashing that straw man are you tosser ?

    > That's what you seem to be saying.

Best get that seems machinery attended to then.

    > It makes no sense to me.

You have always been, and always will
be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

    >> BTW, where's the cite for this "it was reported?"

    > GOTO http://www.npr.org/

Try a specific cite, tosser.

Google doesnt produce anything useful on that claim from that site.

    >> Rents are determined by the free market in capitalist societies.

    > Yes, usually. In San Francisco we have a very fair Rent Control law that works
    > well.

Like hell it does.

    >> The minimum wage is determined by governmental fiat.

    > Yes, but only the gods know upon what it's based.

Not too many end up with unavoidable problems, stupid.

    > Here, to rent a single room, not a one-bedroom apartment, with shared kitchen
    > and bath is about $600.

Bet thats a lie.

    > One can eat for about $200.

Thats clearly a lie.

    > Transportation's about $50. Clothing about $25.

You've just plucked those numbers out of your arse too.

    > Entertainment about $100.

Stupid tosser.

    > That's $975 meaning pay, for 35 hours' work,

Only with your silly wank numbers.

    > of $1,220 or about $8.75 an hour. You state San Francisco's
    > Minimum Wage as "$8.50/hour", $35 a month short for a single room.

Only with your silly wank numbers.

    > The cheapest 1-bedroom apartment I can find today is $1,250.

Irrelevant. They cant afford one each ? Their problem.

    > Add food, transportation, clothing, and entertainment to get $1,625, $1,870
    > pay or $13.35 an hour. Not even close to the Minimum Wage.

Have fun explaining how the illegals manage.

Corse they dont have the problem with ear to ear dog shit that you do.

    >>> the only thing that could possibly approach a solution: Increase the Minimum
    >>> Wage!

And lose even more jobs overseas. Wota stupid approach.

    >> That isn't the only thing that could possibly approach a solution.

    > OK. Suggest another or three.

Govt funded housing projects. Surprise surprise, its been done.

More than one minimum wage 'worker' per accomodation unit.
Surprise surprise, its been done.

Live more cheaply than you stupid numbers.
Surprise surprise, its been done.

    >> For a guy who had the foresight to invest in a few properties, your
    >> understanding of the free market really sucks.

    >>> Increase it to what? Ten percent of what's paid to members of Congress. When
    >>> I first looked into it, they were getting eleven times the Minimum Wage. Now
    >>> they're getting significantly more.

    >> Congresscritters get $158,100 per year. That's $76 per hour - assuming a
    >> standard "work year" of 2080 hours.

    > I assume a work year of 1,820 hours.

Stupid assumption with a minimum wage 'worker'

    > $15,810 per year works out to $8.70 per hour. You state the Federal Minimum
    > Wage is $5.15 per hour.

Like it or lump it.

    >> Minimum wage varies.

    > Yes, but only the Congress can set the Federal Minimum Wage that applies to
    > all workers regardless of what expenses might be where they work and live.

Wrong again, California clearly sets it higher there.

The feds are completely irrelevant there.

    >> In California, it's $6.75/hour. In San Francisco, it's $8.50/hour. In
    >> Washington state, it's $7.16 per hour.

    > None of those is enough to rent a single room, sharing kitchen and bath, in
    > San Francisco.

You're lying again.

    >> congresscritters get about 14.8 times the federally- mandated minimum wage

    >> Your "significantly more" is a load of hooey.

    > No, according to your figures. I said when I first looked into it the
    > Congressional wage it was about eleven times the Minimum Wage. You say that,
    > today, it's 14.8 times. I think that's significantly more.

More fool you, it aint.

    >> What's more, the minimum wage is paid to a relatively small percentage of
    >> working folks.

    > Irrelevant.

Bullshit.

    >> Are you really so clueless as to think that paying minimum-wage workers 10%
    >> of a congressman's salary is a remedy for that?

    > No, but it's a place to start.

Nope.

    > It might not be enough to live here,

Corse it is.

    > but it would be in many other places. According to the report I heard, one
    > earning the Federal Minimum Wage can afford to live in a 1-bedroom apartment
    > in only four of the USA's 3,000 counties.

Pity thats using utterly an bogus scenario.

Usual lefty lying.

    >>> Those with the most power in our society are increasing their income while
    >>> ignoring those with the least power in our society.

    >> Those with the most power in our society are the CEOs and executives at the
    >> companies that hire and fire and pay wages to the people they employ. Many
    >> of them make salaries well over 10 times that of the congresscritter's
    >> salary.

    > The owners of their companies, the shareholders, seem to be willing to pay
    > them so much. I think it's absurd.

You have always been, and always will
be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

    > How could anyone be worth eleven times the President's wage? Ten times? Maybe.

Pathetic, really.

    >> Why don't you demand that minimum wage be 10% of that?

    > Let's see, 10% of $20,000,000 is $2,000,000. That's $1,099 per hour. Not
    > practical.

Neither is the stupid minimum wage you want either.

    > The Minimum Wage worker would have to work only two hours to make a month's
    > nut. Little would get done.

Pathetic, really.

    >>> It's not only unAmerican, it also violates the professed values of every
    >>> major philosophy on Earth.

    >> You're a major loon.

Very minor and insignificant loon, actually.

    > Thank you.

    >> The principles of free-market capitalism are in no way violated by this.

    > Did someone say the are?

    >> You're saying that free-market capitalism is un-American?

    > No, I'm not saying that, either. What I am saying is that I believe it's
    > unAmerican for workers to have a full time job that pays too little to buy
    > shelter, food, clothing, transportation, and entertainment.

Pity you're lying about that. In spades with the free entertainment.

    >> So, you won't have a problem with the state confiscating all your real-estate
    >> investments?

    > The relationship escapes me.

Just like everything else does too.

EvelynVogtGamble

anonymouse wrote:

    >
    >>>>> I don't think it's ever possible to provide an accurate number. Is
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> wino on the corner with the WILL WORK FOR FOOD sign employed,
    >>>>> unemployed, or no longer seeking work?
    >
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > he's self employed as a con artist.

Perhaps "enterprising pan-haindler" is more accurate. I'm
sure he cheerfully accepts all monetary hand-outs, but I
wonder what the reaction would be if someone actually
offered him a job?