There is an interesting loophole to labor and overtime laws in the U S of A.

You know the law that says you have to pay time-and-a-half for overtime?

Not so fast.  Turns out that if you are a mechanic for a trucking company, the law does not require that you be paid overtime.  Period. (Such is the case at my company)

I wonder why no politician has tried to close this loophole? ???


http://www.thompson.com/public/headlines.jsp?id=52

There is an interesting loophole to labor and overtime laws in the U S of A.

You know the law that says you have to pay time-and-a-half for overtime?

Not so fast.  Turns out that if you are a mechanic for a trucking company, the law does not require that you be paid overtime.  Period. (Such is the case at my company)

I wonder why no politician has tried to close this loophole? ???


http://www.thompson.com/public/headlines.jsp?id=52


So the companies are using weight limits specified in SAFETEA-LU to gyp employees out of overtime pay by reclassifying "motor carrier" as "motor private carrier"?

(The legalese is confounding here).
:D

If I'm not mistaken, the federal "Fair Labor Standers Act" contains child labor provisions, which state laws can't undermine, they are the minimum standards.  Maybe Missouri wants to secede from the union along with South Carolina

If I'm not mistaken, the federal "Fair Labor Standers Act" contains child labor provisions, which state laws can't undermine, they are the minimum standards.  Maybe Missouri wants to secede from the union along with South Carolina


Well the Motor Carrier overtime exemption is not a state issue; it is a Federal regulation.

Well the Motor Carrier overtime exemption is not a state issue; it is a Federal regulation.


Farm workers are also excluded, both should be remedied.  Do you expect this congress to do so?  Your republican congress?

Farm workers are also excluded, both should be remedied.  Do you expect this congress to do so?  Your republican congress?


No more than I saw the previous Democratic congress attack it either.

No more than I saw the previous Democratic congress attack it either.




Agreed, but who is more likely?  Yore rebups are trying to repeal existing labor law, not extending it.  If they had the chance they6 would repeal the Wagnor Act

Agreed, but who is more likely?  Yore rebups are trying to repeal existing labor law, not extending it.  If they had the chance they6 would repeal the Wagnor Act


Well as I recall it is our own President Obama who would like to repeal Section 9 of the Wagner act itself.

Well as I recall it is our own President Obama who would like to repeal Section 9 of the Wagner act itself.


I need to see documentation on that assertion, unless you are referring to the move to limit employer's ability to block check-off balloting.

I need to see documentation on that assertion, unless you are referring to the move to limit employer's ability to block check-off balloting.


Yes I am referring to his support for eliminating the secret ballot process for union elections (or unelections).

Instead of the secret ballot, which has been a fundamental feature of fair elections worldwide, the President supports eliminating the right of workers to vote for... or against... a union by secret ballot.  That way union goons can muscle workers to sign the cards.

Secret ballot polling places are monitored to eliminate intimidation, and the voter is free to vote whichever way he or she sees fit, without anybody knowing which way they voted.  But somehow so-called "labor progressives" think that secret balloting is bad for the country.

One of O'bama's cronies... Ron Bloom... is all for eliminating the secret ballot.  Well, almost.  When his USWA union lost a representation card-check vote in Middletown Ohio to the Machinists union, it lobbied the company to reject the result in favor of a secret ballot which the USWA lost by an even larger margin.

Yes I am referring to his support for eliminating the secret ballot process for union elections (or unelections).

Instead of the secret ballot, which has been a fundamental feature of fair elections worldwide, the President supports eliminating the right of workers to vote for... or against... a union by secret ballot.  That way union goons can muscle workers to sign the cards.

Secret ballot polling places are monitored to eliminate intimidation, and the voter is free to vote whichever way he or she sees fit, without anybody knowing which way they voted.  But somehow so-called "labor progressives" think that secret balloting is bad for the country.

One of O'bama's cronies... Ron Bloom... is all for eliminating the secret ballot.  Well, almost.  When his USWA union lost a representation card-check vote in Middletown Ohio to the Machinists union, it lobbied the company to reject the result in favor of a secret ballot which the USWA lost by an even larger margin.


And ninety nine times out of 100 it is the boss intimidating workers to vote no union.  I have seen it happen several times.  The union gets lots of support, management demands an election and then, in the interval, launches a major anti-union campaign.  If the majority of workers sign up for the union, the union should be recognized, oh, and closed shop should be the rule, not the exception

And ninety nine times out of 100 it is the boss intimidating workers to vote no union.  I have seen it happen several times.  The union gets lots of support, management demands an election and then, in the interval, launches a major anti-union campaign.  If the majority of workers sign up for the union, the union should be recognized, oh, and closed shop should be the rule, not the exception


My opinion... the current prohibitions of the company threatening to close down (or to curtail wages, bennies, etc)  if a union is voted in consitute a violation of Free Speech rights.  So what if the company launches an anti-union campaign?  The workers are smart enough to decide for themselves if they need a union or not.  (And in many cases they do need a union).  If a union is allowed to make a huge pro-Union campaign, there should be no reason that the company cannot launch an anti-union campaign.

The difference is... with card check (the "sign up")... the union goon gets to look over the worker's shoulder and "keep notes" as to who is for or against the union.  I've seen it happen.  With secret ballot, both the Union and Company can campaign away, but in the end the worker can vote in secrecy without feeling the immediate personalized threat.

My opinion... the current prohibitions of the company threatening to close down (or to curtail wages, bennies, etc)  if a union is voted in consitute a violation of Free Speech rights.  So what if the company launches an anti-union campaign?  The workers are smart enough to decide for themselves if they need a union or not.  (And in many cases they do need a union).  If a union is allowed to make a huge pro-Union campaign, there should be no reason that the company cannot launch an anti-union campaign.

The difference is... with card check (the "sign up")... the union goon gets to look over the worker's shoulder and "keep notes" as to who is for or against the union.  I've seen it happen.  With secret ballot, both the Union and Company can campaign away, but in the end the worker can vote in secrecy without feeling the immediate personalized threat.


Actually, there is.  As I understand labor law, it is illegal for a company to interfere with a union organization effort. 

And so, the organizer "keeps notes" on those who refuse to sign the pledge cards, why I can't understand, since all are asked and those who refuse are not among the signed cards.  What power does the organizer have over them?  Unlike the firm, which can fire them, and I know that this has happened.

I'd like to know in what cases workers don't need a union.  Certainly not in a cooperative, but otherwise where?  With a benevolent dictator?  As I think you said in another thread, boss's benevolence doesn't extend very far, and it is not something I would want to count on.