Federal Work Laws You Would Like To See Passed (apply, visa, employer)

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

Limit use of temp agencies for a position to 6 months max after which mandate that the company has to hire the worker and that there be no or minimal restrictions for them to do so or let them go and leave the position vacant.

Noncompetes are automatically illegal except for narrow exceptions. This is a no-brainer as it is against the very principles of capitalism.

Make it easy for applicants to sue manufacturers of psychometric tests. They are quackery whose false claims are hurting innocent job seekers.

Companies that post fake jobs or interview with no intention to hire are despicable and should be liable for wasted time. Especially the ones that use the interview as a way to get free consulting on a real project.

Managers that slander former employees because they are sociopaths should be personally liable as well as their employing company.

Companies that lie about former employees at UI hearings should be subject to arrest and prosecution for perjury as well as heavy fines. Same with executives lying to congress about STEM shortages and fraudulently use the h1b program like Disney and Southern Edison.

I like your ideas. But I would revise them:

1. I agree. They shouldn't keep using a temp agency to fill a position they need but are too cheap to pay for themselves. Either hire another company to do that job who will pay the employee benefits, or just not have the position.

2. I agree non-competes should be gone.

3. Psychometric tests are stupid but I don't see why they should be sued. I have only seen these types of tests on minimum wage jobs. Granted on minimum wage jobs it is probably important to limit the number of people to interview, since anyone can do them.

4. Fake jobs should be done I agree. If the company is not hiring anyone, there should be no job postings. It is that simple.

5. Slander can already be a reason to sue somebody.

6. Lying about ex-employees so they shouldn't have to pay unemployment is despicable.

I would go further to say I would like the h1b program completely gone or severely limited. If a company wants to hire a h1b they should be required to show ALL APPLICANTS to see if any AMERICAN can still be deemed as qualified. If at least one American can be deemed as someone who can do the job, they should not be able to hire a h1b. Whether the person is local or not. Our country should prioritize hiring Americans on American soil over temporary people.

Also I would require minimum wage to be adjusted for inflation every year. I wouldn't increase the wage at the federal level as there are too many COL differences in this country, I would leave minimum wage increases for the places that feel they need a higher minimum wage for a person. Minimum wage should be adjusted so that a single person working full-time at minimum wage can afford a one bedroom apartment and the ability to live on their own (i.e. will not need welfare to support themselves). In some places, it may not be higher than the current minimum wage, which is why I think it should be left to the county level and not state or federal.

Some R&D encouragement program should be implemented, if it hires Americans and is done on American soil. Whether this is a tax break, or something.

I would also require employers offer maternity leave.

[mitsguy2001]

I started a thread on that topic a while ago. It didn't go too well:
What do you feel would be a fair way to treat exempt white collar professional employees?

Read the whole thread, since the ideas I was suggesting evolved later in the thread.

I think most important is a prohibition against being required to work 7 consecutive days. Secondly would be a requirement that if somebody is required to work on a weekend or other time that is usually off, they should have to be told a week in advance. Thirdly, people should not be required to work on major holidays. In an industry where it is necessary for people to work 7 days a week, at a moment's notice, or on major holidays, they should then be treated as hourly, with all the rights and privileges that hourly gets, including time and a half. Some exceptions may be needed for true emergencies. Failure to plan for a routine deadline is not an emergency. Intentionally not hiring enough employees to save money is not an emergency either.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by Storm Eagle

What laws pertaining to work do you think would be good to have? I would like to see a law that employers are not allowed to make an employer work more then 9 hours a shift. Working more then that much is not good for you physically, mentally or for your family life. Now if employees want to work more that is their choice but it should be that a choice.

That is the problem why, unfortunately, labor laws don't seem to work. I think everybody would agree that if somebody wants to work more than 9 hours a shift, they shouldn't be stopped. But the problem is, that pressures everybody to do the same. At your evaluation, you will get "Fred works 12 hours every day, 7 days a week. Why do you only work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week", even though the official workday is Mon-Fri, 8 hours per day. Unfortunately, I do not have a good solution.

In any case, although I prefer not to, I am willing to work more than 9 hours per day, as long as it is only 5 days per week (6 at the absolute most). Unfortunately, it seems that most people in my field willingly work 7 days a week.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

If you work up to say 30 days vacation per year with one company, and move to another that starts you at 2 weeks as did your old company, who do you expect to pay for those extra two weeks vacation.

A reasonably system would be for the employer who laid you off to have to pay for the unused vacation time, and for the new employer to have to allow unpaid time off. If an employee voluntarily leaves, then it is up to the employee to either negotiate more vacation time, or stay at the current job if he/she doesn't want to lose vacation time.

Expecting a new employer to pay it is the most unreasonable request you could make.

I don't think anybody suggested that.

Additional days are earned by working for the employer. If you leave that employer, then you no longer have earned them.

But once you earn them, I do not feel that it is right that an employer can take them away from you.

If there was a federal law the new employee got the same vacation as they got at a former employer, they would only hire employees that got a maximum of 2 weeks vacation at their last employer. What it would mean, is you would be unemployable with most employers, and would find it nearly impossible to impossible to find a new job, after leaving one where you worked 22 years.

Again, I don't think anybody is suggesting that.

Then other methods would be developed to evaluate job applicants. When they get 500 applicants for one job as often happens, it is nearly impossible to evaluate potential employees. Such tests allow a company to sort out potential employees and if they were forbidden there would have to be something to replace them with. If there are huge number of applicants as there are in some areas of the country, there has to be a way to give a wide group of people a chance at the job, and these tests are the best way now. Do away with them, and the majority of the people that at least have a chance for the job would be eliminated and that is what would hurt innocent job seekers as you say you want to protect.

Maybe if you were willing to allow employees to work 40 hours a week, 5 days per week, you would have to hire more people, the unemployment rate would be lower, and you wouldn't be interviewing 500 people for 1 job.

[2nd trick op]

I'm wary of "blanket" laws that can be misapplied in non-traditional situations, but I believe that the abuse of the concept of "straight salary" has increased drastically since the days when "sole breadwinners" dominated the labor force, and that breadwinner was usually assumed to be white and male. The broadening and diversification of the labor force over the past forty yeas, combined with the breakdown of resistance to aggressive management in core industries via the disintegration of organized labor has provided Korporate Amerika with a huge new pool of interchangeable parts, and it's increasingly easy to find the handful of employees who will accept what a more-solidified shop wouldn't a few years ago.

A well-defined set of skills with high intrinsic value is increasingly rare; the emphasis is on "jumping through hoops" and acquiring non-transferable skills unique to the employer -- who promises to all, but usually delivers only a handful of yes-(wo)men. We need standards to determine when the desire for a respectable work ethic turns into abuse, but I'm not sure how a standard could be determined.

[pvande55]

Allow h1b but minimum pay to be set at 3 times median household income. Make veterans day a government holiday only for those who served. Expand visa program for Ag workers and start enforcing laws against hiring illegal aliens. Eliminate government pensions for those still working somewhere else.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

I'm wary of "blanket" laws that can be misapplied in non-traditional situations, but I believe that the abuse of the concept of "straight salary" has increased drastically since the days when "sole breadwinners" dominated the labor force, and that breadwinner was usually assumed to be white and male. The broadening and diversification of the labor force over the past forty yeas, combined with the breakdown of resistance to aggressive management in core industries via the disintegration of organized labor has provided Korporate Amerika with a huge new pool of interchangeable parts, and it's increasingly easy to find the handful of employees who will accept what a more-solidified shop wouldn't a few years ago.

A well-defined set of skills with high intrinsic value is increasingly rare; the emphasis is on "jumping through hoops" and acquiring non-transferable skills unique to the employer -- who promises to all, but usually delivers only a handful of yes-(wo)men. We need standards to determine when the desire for a respectable work ethic turns into abuse, but I'm not sure how a standard could be determined.

That is very true. Originally, the classification of exempt, salaried employees was so that the CEO didn't get paid time and a half to play golf with clients, or to sleep on the train while travelling to a meeting. It was not intended so that rank and file employees being paid a barely (if at all) living wage would be forced to work ridiculous hours.

[brownbagg]

after reading these post it seems like most here, wants a socialist system, instead of a capitalist system. Why cant i work seven days a week, Why cant I work 12 hours a day, why cant i not take any vacation. some people like to work, it has purpose. why should the government tell me what i cant do, if its agreeable between employee and employer.

[Domitian]

Originally Posted by brownbagg

after reading these post it seems like most here, wants a socialist system, instead of a capitalist system. Why cant i work seven days a week, Why cant I work 12 hours a day, why cant i not take any vacation. some people like to work, it has purpose. why should the government tell me what i cant do, if its agreeable between employee and employer.

what these don't realize is that while THEY don't want to work 9 hour days and while THEY want 6 weeks of paid vacation -- AND get paid $75,000 salary -- there are a few hundred people who WILL work 9 hours days with little to no paid vacation and do it all for $50,000 salary...

well, wait, perhaps they DO realize this which is why they desire LAWS to make happen what a free market wont't...

[bande1102]

No salaries, only hourly rates.

When advertising for a job the hourly rate + # of hours should be listed

No severance packages contingent on not discussing the company.

Schedules must be written and posted 2 weeks in advance.