companies cutting hours or days? (insurance, percentage, contractor, union)

[civic94]

There has been hiring by companies in the news, but i know many people whom their jobs were cut to about 32 hours a week. I have a friend that used to work 40 a week, now about 34 hours a week, and her pay was cut by a small percentage per hour. she was already struggling with her old 40 hrs/wk and higher pay. she is widowed and have kids.


more and more of the people that i know has had this happen, and i think this might be a new trend of many companies. for myself, I did the same type of work 6 years ago, and i was paid more per hour back then. and i get 40 hours a week back then. now i have to ask for open shifts in order to get 40 a week.

[mathjak107]

its different in every area and industry.

we have to much overtime lately in our industry. we are looking for people in every capacity . we are in long island ny.

we have gotten so desperate for good workers we even resorted to calling un-employment to send us bodies.

we are a full line electrical distributor that specializes in motor controls,pumps and motors and we got a huge shot in the arm with sandy.

we have had people tell us they want 20 bucks an hour to unload trucks because thats what their unemployment and working off the books at the local deli brings them.

so much for accurate unemployment numbers. most of those we interviewed dont want to work and give up the unemployment unless its for a crazy amount of money .

[civic94]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

we have had people tell us they want 20 bucks an hour to unload trucks because thats what their unemployment and working off the books at the local deli brings them.

so much for accurate unemployment numbers. most of those we interviewed dont want to work and give up the unemployment unless its for a crazy amount of money .

this is true. once factored in for the cost of transportation, time lost, its a way better deal to stay on unemployment for many people. even if its a big difference, as long as people can still barely cover their bills, they will stay unemployed. who wants to listen to someone, work hard if they dont have to.

[andywire]

Have not noticed that. Really, it wouldn't make sense for the companies to do this if they are providing health insurance and other benefits. Most companies in my line of work hire as little as possible, and offer as much OT as possible. Than again, finding decent workers can be a challenge, so we are forced to work with what we've got.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by civic94

...but i know many people whom their jobs were cut to about 32 hours a week.
...and i think this might be a new trend of many companies.

It's been a "new trend" for a long time.

Anyone who isn't foolish enough to take a "salary" position (read: 20 unpaid hours a week)...
can expect to have their time clock hours limited.

The few exceptions (of full 40 plus paid OT) are mostly skilled labor jobs and where the industry
norms are still under union pressure to maintain what once was the norm everywhere.

[andywire]

Originally Posted by MrRational

The few exceptions (of full 40 plus paid OT) are mostly skilled labor jobs and where the industry
norms are still under union pressure to maintain what once was the norm everywhere.

Umm... What?

Most unionized workers I know do not get OT. The reason is the unions want as many people working as possible, and that means no OT if there are workers waiting for work. The few plumbers and electricians I know claim OT is extremely rare, especially at their pay rates of +$40/hr.

Non union shops are a much different animal. They find it cheaper to hire fewer bodies and make them work OT due to the obscene cost of health insurance. When holidays come, it's also cheaper to pay one idle body than 2.

If anything, it just sounds like work is slowing up and the companies are spreading the burden around, instead of resorting to layoffs. Maybe they grew a heart?

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by MrRational

It's been a "new trend" for a long time.

Anyone who isn't foolish enough to take a "salary" position (read: 20 unpaid hours a week)...
can expect to have their time clock hours limited.

The few exceptions (of full 40 plus paid OT) are mostly skilled labor jobs and where the industry
norms are still under union pressure to maintain what once was the norm everywhere.

many jobs that fell under "exempt" and were not paid overtime are now reclassified as hourly and get ot.

all the lawyers that used to chase ambulances gave that up. the place to be today is a wage/hour attorney.

not only is it class action ,its almost impossible to defend against .an employer never wants it to go to court. it carries horrific fines and penalties.

my son is a wage/hour attorney but only represents employers . he said its so horrific to an employer that only 1% of all their cases make it to court.

the days of dreaming up exempt positions are over for employers and just because the employer catagorizes a position as exempt from over time does not mean a judge agrees.

employers used to stretch job descriptions to the point they can squeeze the employees in as an exempt position.

we just saw a new york judge blow the doors off my own industry.

inside sales in our industry was classified as an exempt position based on the fact we make decisions.

a ny judge said that pricing decisions dont qualify as management decisions and ruled that everyone involved in that case has to be payed overtime even if they agreed that their salary was for a 50 hour week.

unless their checks showed so much at overtime and so much straight time the amount for 50 hours could be the same total but the fact its not broken out on the check was a big issue.

now that the judge ruled it wasnt an exempt position their checks only showed a flat rate and so they had to get overtime for each additional hour over 40..

just like you cant agree to work for less than min wage you cant agree to work for no overtime as you must be paid that by the employer.


so it cost the employer overtime for every employee, huge fines and penalties and as part of the law the employer has to pay everyones legal bills too.


unless a position definately falls under exempt its a dangerous game trying to classify employees as such if they dont properly fit the classification as exempt without a shadow of a doubt.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by andywire

Umm... What?

Most unionized workers I know do not get OT. The reason is the unions want as many people working as possible, and that means no OT if there are workers waiting for work. The few plumbers and electricians I know claim OT is extremely rare, especially at their pay rates of +$40/hr.

Non union shops are a much different animal. They find it cheaper to hire fewer bodies and make them work OT due to the obscene cost of health insurance. When holidays come, it's also cheaper to pay one idle body than 2.

If anything, it just sounds like work is slowing up and the companies are spreading the burden around, instead of resorting to layoffs. Maybe they grew a heart?

Its not legal not to pay any blue coller tradesman overtime.

They are all non exempt employees even if union.

Any business owner that does not pay them overtime is setting the stage for a huge economic hit if even 1 goes to the labor board or a lawyer.

[Philip T]

Would be so much cleaner if businesses would let the workers be legit Independent Contractors.

I do, and we tend to follow the law and restrictions very tightly.

Works out Very Well for the business(es) and the Worker Bees.

[andywire]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

Its not legal not to pay any blue coller tradesman overtime.

They are all non exempt employees even if union.

Any business owner that does not pay them overtime is setting the stage for a huge economic hit if even 1 goes to the labor board or a lawyer.

I wasn't saying union workers weren't getting paid for OT. I was saying many aren't working any OT. It's usually a last resort.