A bill to remove remove overtime from IT workers

Mishra

tpatt100 wrote: »

Good enough? I know there were amendments that cover this

I'll save on explaining this until after I ask this question. Because you haven't expressed your personal opinion, do you really think this clause means federal government can regulate whatever they want? Or least tell corporations how much overtime they are allowed to give their employees?

tpatt100

Mishra wrote: »

I'll save on explaining this until after I ask this question. Because you haven't expressed your personal opinion, do you really think this clause means federal government can regulate whatever they want? Or least tell corporations how much overtime they are allowed to give their employees?

I am not sure but wasn't it the government who established labor laws that required overtime pay in the first place? To say they should stay out of the workplace because we got used to the earlier intervention seems contradictory. I figure now a days companies could easily get away with not paying overtime and telling plenty of people to suck it up and deal with it.

Zartanasaurus

Mishra wrote: »

Show me where Congress has these 2 powers under Article 1 Section 8 and you get a cookie.

General Welfare + Necessary and Proper clauses.

Turgon

alan2308 wrote: »

So we can close the thread now?

Or just do this..

Cops pepper spray peaceful California students at UC Davis - YouTube

Politics generally doesn't do very much for regular joes these days earning a living. I imagine the thread will be locked fairly soon.

tpatt100

I know I don't need overtime if I'm screwing off on here with you all

veritas_libertas

alan2308 wrote: »

So we can close the thread now?

LOL!

Okay, why not?

Mishra

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

General Welfare + Necessary and Proper clauses.

Necessary and Proper clause does not grant the federal government powers to do anything they want. It simply tells you that you are allowed to assume some laws to establish the FOREGOING POWERS (meaning the powers they listed in section . Like you can assume you need to make a law to build a office when establishing a postal system.

Here is what general welfare means:

“Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government"

Do you really think this means the federal government can regulate overtime pay of corporations? If so, our founding fathers would completely disagree with you, and the overall purpose of the federal government.

You want labor laws? The states are allowed to do anything they want to corporations as long as they aren't breaking the rights of US citizens.

tpatt100

Mishra wrote: »

Necessary and Proper clause does not grant the federal government powers to do anything they want. It simply tells you that you are allowed to assume some laws to establish the FOREGOING POWERS (meaning the powers they listed in section . Like you can assume you need to make a law to build a office when establishing a postal system.

Here is what general welfare means:

“Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government"

Do you really think this means the federal government can regulate overtime pay of corporations? If so, our founding fathers would completely disagree with you, and the overall purpose of the federal government.

You want labor laws? The states are allowed to do anything they want to corporations as long as they aren't breaking the rights of US citizens.

Yeah overtime prevents that if your working overtime you can't enjoy the peace of your home j/k. Besides the corporations run everything now a days anyways. Really we should just do away with politicians and have CEO's run for office.

Mishra

tpatt100 wrote: »

I am not sure but wasn't it the government who established labor laws that required overtime pay in the first place? To say they should stay out of the workplace because we got used to the earlier intervention seems contradictory. I figure now a days companies could easily get away with not paying overtime and telling plenty of people to suck it up and deal with it.

There is a huge different between Federal and State government in constitutionalist's eyes. With the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So Congress has very little actual authority in what they can and can not do. Only the very few powers listed in Section 8. The States have all the power to stop these things. So yes, state government is allowed to establish labor laws. But no where in the Constitution can federal government regulate labor; you can't even interpret a power to grant this right (interpret meaning for example... creating a postal system obviously requires making a building in each state, so this isn't specifically granted but assumed because Congress has the power to create a postal system).


To explain that power to Congress now that you stated your opinion... Here is what welfare meant in the 1800s

“Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government"

Also, the federalist papers (papers written by the founders) state the reason why this was put into the Constitution:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

It was the purpose of the founders to have a very small federal government.

Mishra

I feel like I'm on topic as I'm disagreeing with the ability to even control what the article said. But I'll stop posting here since explaining what the federal government is isn't necessarily technical.

Zartanasaurus

Mishra wrote: »

Necessary and Proper clause does not grant the federal government powers to do anything they want.

How many times are you going to use this strawman in the thread?

IEWANNABE

tpatt100 wrote: »

But what if they did away with over time and just paid you regular wage?

The market never fails if you just let it do it's job. Some company will say WALA! I think that IOT to bring the best and brightest under my roof, I'll offer O/T. The best and brightest will pick up on this and go to work for that guy. The guys who don't want to pay O/T for whatever reasons,... get what they pay for.

You can bet that there is some other industry or company behind this..by way of their lobbyist...who puts money in the congressional reps pocktets to bring this garbage to the floor. In the real business world, very few like competition, regardless of what they say. That's why it's so hard and troublesome for small businesses to get started. Go to NYC and dare to licence your car as a taxi and see what happens LOL! With all of the cumbersome paperwork and the many expensive fees and licenses you will need, you already have to be in good financial standings IOT make it. You'll end up just a driver for Yellow cab company who has the Biz on lock, because they've paid congressman (by way of lobbyist) to make it this way. To put this in prospective, a guy in Hong Kong can go to his prospective licenseing office and buy ONE license for about 20 bucks... if that, and he is then he's free to drive people around and earn money.

The govt is involved in just about EVERYTHING, except what it should be involved in. Guess that's why we're in the shape we're in as a country.

IEWANNABE

tpatt100 wrote: »

I am not sure but wasn't it the government who established labor laws that required overtime pay in the first place? To say they should stay out of the workplace because we got used to the earlier intervention seems contradictory. I figure now a days companies could easily get away with not paying overtime and telling plenty of people to suck it up and deal with it.

This is true, but not because they loved or cared about the worker so much. Their hand was forced through many, protests, sit-in's, strikes and tragedies. Just because you make a baby, doesn't give you the right to strangle it to death. One thing our govt is really good at, and that's squeezing the life out of whichever business or businesses they chose. There is a healty degree of regulation needed...no doubt, but with so many hands in the pockets of our congressional reps, I doubt if we'll ever get to where we could be and should be.

Companies could indeed go the path of not paying folks o/t, but I'm willing to bet that some other company in this country, or in another country just might. I'm sure that I'm not the only one here, but I've had companies not pay me what they were supposed to and I simply quit and went to work for companies that did it right.

Slowhand

Unfortunately, I think this thread got a little bit too off-topic and into the realm of general politics. Everything that's going to be said about the original post has been said, so before we get back into the fray, I think this discussion is best left where it is.