Cantor proposes flexibility for hourl...
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

#73 Mar 2, 2013
scooby slew wrote:
<quoted text>The line of credit wasn't with the utility company, it was with a bank and guaranteed by the utility company. For the utility company to have to pay, the DNC had to default on the line of credit.
How could it be good for local business for the DNC to default at the bank 6 months after the fact again?
To be the amused slewchebag, or not to be the amused slewchebag, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of the outrageous bushwhacked,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of smart liberals,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to?'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, will any remember you were once the spell check princess of topix?
Not proof of a default, since the debt was cancelled.... Of course, repeating non-sense suits you.
scooby slew

Saint Paul, MN

#75 Mar 2, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>Not proof of a default, since the debt was cancelled.... Of course, repeating non-sense suits you.
The line of credit wasn't with the utility company, it was with a bank and guaranteed by the utility company. For the utility company to have to pay, the DNC had to default on the line of credit.

How could it be good for local business for the DNC to default at the bank 6 months after the fact again?

To be the amused slewchebag, or not to be the amused slewchebag, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of the outrageous bushwhacked,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of smart liberals,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to?'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, will any remember you were once the spell check princess of topix?
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#78 Mar 4, 2013
Yet today, the federal government has a patchwork of over 47 different overlapping programs that are not dynamic or innovative enough to meet the needs of employers or potential employees. We can fix this, and we should be able to muster bipartisan support to do so.

If you’re a working parent, you know there’s hardly ever enough time at home to be with the kids. Too many parents have to weigh whether they can afford to miss work even for half a day to see their child off on the first day of school or attend a parent-teacher conference.

Federal laws dating back to the 1930s make it harder for parents who hold hourly jobs to balance the demands of work and home. An hourly employee cannot convert previous overtime into future comp-time or flex-time. In 1985, Congress passed a law that gave state and municipal employees this flexibility, but today still denies that same privilege to the entire private sector. That’s not right.

There’s a police officer at home in my district, her name is Vicki. She is working a tough job, with long hours, while raising her children. Her life is made a little easier because as a local government employee, she is permitted to work some extra hours and save it up for a sick day or a school event.

Imagine if we simply chose to give all employees and employers this option. A working mom could work overtime this month and use it as time off next month without having to worry about whether she’ll be able to take home enough money to pay the rent. This is the kind of common sense legislation that should be non-controversial and moves us in the right direction to help make life work for families.

How do you get this to read that Cantor wants to pass a federal law against overtime again?

Progressivism, for people bad at reading comprehension.

Read Cantor's whole speech in its' entirety here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/ ...
liBeRALs

Saint Paul, MN

#79 Mar 4, 2013
What Cantor proposed was the overtime no longer be subject to the Federal Fair Standards LAbor Act, which would NOT mean that employees could choose to take comp time rather than overtime - rather it would mean that employees MUST take comp time instead of overtime, and with no regulation that would also mean that the company would choose WHEN that comp time would be taken.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#80 Mar 4, 2013
liBeRALs wrote:
What Cantor proposed was the overtime no longer be subject to the Federal Fair Standards LAbor Act, which would NOT mean that employees could choose to take comp time rather than overtime - rather it would mean that employees MUST take comp time instead of overtime, and with no regulation that would also mean that the company would choose WHEN that comp time would be taken.
It doesn't say that anywhere in Cantor's speech. If it does, please provide the exact quote that says it. What Cantor is proposing is that workers that want to can take comp time in place of overtime.
liBeRALs

Saint Paul, MN

#81 Mar 4, 2013
"Imagine if we simply chose to give all employees and employers this option."

AND EMPLOYERS - get it?

What Cantor proposed was the overtime no longer be subject to the Federal Fair Standards LAbor Act, which would NOT mean that employees could choose to take comp time rather than overtime - rather it would mean that employees MUST take comp time instead of overtime, and with no regulation that would also mean that the company would choose WHEN that comp time would be taken.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#82 Mar 4, 2013
liBeRALs wrote:
"Imagine if we simply chose to give all employees and employers this option."
AND EMPLOYERS - get it?
What Cantor proposed was the overtime no longer be subject to the Federal Fair Standards LAbor Act, which would NOT mean that employees could choose to take comp time rather than overtime - rather it would mean that employees MUST take comp time instead of overtime, and with no regulation that would also mean that the company would choose WHEN that comp time would be taken.
So an employer can't offer additional hours to the 40 hour week to employees that would want comp time? Seems like you like to read extra things in that aren't here. Get it?
liBeRALs

Saint Paul, MN

#83 Mar 4, 2013
OK, let's try your reading comprehension.

"Imagine if we simply chose to give all employees and employers this option".

You really aren't that dumb (at least I don't think so)- so where do you see that it says that the employee gets to choose whether he gets to take comp time or receive overtime?

Now let's look at something else. Cantor has never introduced a bill to benefit people rather than companies in his entire career.

And here's another gem - this idea is supported by the national Chamber of Commerce. Why? Because they want to be good people? Come on, now, its because they save big money by forcing employees to take comp time - at a time of their choosing - rather than paying overtime.

Does it have to be tatooed on your forehead before you understand?
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#84 Mar 4, 2013
What do you not get about the words "choose" and "option"? It doesn't say "force" and "mandatory" anywhere, now does it? Some businesses would like to save money, and some employees would like the option to have more time off.

Once again, "choose" and "option". Not so hard to comprehend now, is it?
liBeRALs

Saint Paul, MN

#85 Mar 4, 2013
You REALLY are that stupid! I am amazed that anyone could be so naive.

It is irrelevant because it will never pass anyway, so this is all a waste of time.
liBeRALs

Saint Paul, MN

#86 Mar 4, 2013
Here, look this up:

In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled (in Christensen v. Harris County that local government can compel employees to take accumulated comp time rather than take it at any time of their choosing.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#87 Mar 4, 2013
liBeRALs wrote:
Here, look this up:
In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled (in Christensen v. Harris County that local government can compel employees to take accumulated comp time rather than take it at any time of their choosing.
No one can force employees to take comp time over overtime, and Cantor did not suggest that. As to your Christenson vs. Harris county argument, the horror of the employer forcing the employee to take time off, and having the audacity to pay them for it.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#88 Mar 4, 2013
liBeRALs wrote:
Here, look this up:
In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled (in Christensen v. Harris County that local government can compel employees to take accumulated comp time rather than take it at any time of their choosing.
Employers can force employees to take their vacation time as well. The horror of it all........
liBeRALs

Saint Paul, MN

#89 Mar 4, 2013
You said the employee got to choose when to take the comp time.

More lies?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Funeral held for US soldier at center of Trump ... 1 hr LVPD is Incompetent 2
Five former US presidents unite for hurricane r... 1 hr LVPD is Incompetent 4
Congresswoman Frederica Wilson 2 hr TAAM 5
Shepard Smith 4 hr Davycrockett 5
WhiteTrash NFL Fans 4 hr CutSplitStacked 19
Man-turned-woman convicted of restroom sex assa... 7 hr Space ace 6
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 9 hr Into The Night 37,490

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages