How many job hours do you average?

[anonomoose]

This is an economy question...as it seems to me that to get people back to work, stop foreclosures, create income and tax revenue, that we need to change some fundamentals.

It is my premise that companies have learned to do with fewer employees who are working more than 40 hours a week.

If this is true and we could tweak the laws to discourage overtime to current employees in favor of some hiring perhaps in the form of tax credits to companies to generate employment, we would all be better off.

I know a scad of people who are working more than 50 hours per week making good money but tired of just working. They also tell me that they feel that they are "lucky" to be employed, and that the employers 'remind' them of this fact as an implied threat, and so working more doing more than one man's job keeps the economy stagnated by not hiring more men to do the same job.

So.....what do you think? Could Obamanomics incorporate this simple plan to stimulate job growth?

 

[98panther]

Businesses figure they can pay "X" hours overtime and it's still cheaper than hiring another person. Because all the cost of the benefits for another person.

If your proposing taxing them extra for overtime hours to offset that. They may decide it's better to not take any work that can't do in 40 hours. Or it may just give them one more reason to send work overseas.

IMO not a good idea

 

[nytro_rtx]

I've hired 2 full time people in the last few months and plan to add 1 more part timer soon. Some of my employees only work 40 hrs.(sometimes more depending on work load) while some work 50 hrs or more because of the machine the machine they run. Some of the machines are always busier then others. If I took the O.T. away from them I'd never hear the end of it!

If they want to create jobs, maybe they should take the credits away from companies having product built over seas or put a terrif on the goods when they come into the US.

I didn't vote in the poll, but being the owner I'm usualy in the 50+ hrs. range.
nytro

I agree with panther, not a good idea

 

[fish633]

Best way to create jobs is to S-Can BoBo and the rest of the clown posse along with their policies,regulations and executive orders.

 

[squat]

30

 

[megan600]

I'm salary so I work 40 hours + a whole lot of "casual overtime". I usually stay a bit over, and then I am on the phone or email at some point every night. Its not terrible, I feel appreciated and I also just use that extra cushion to make up for days where I might have to jet out a bit early.

 

[squat]

30 hour work week that was ...lol

 

[Hoosier]

IF the administration wanted to create jobs (which is an IF), they would make it clear that they don't plan to implement all the job-killing and money wasting measures they have been planning (cap and trade, Obamacare, anything to do with the EPA, the Dodd/Frank regulations, expiration of tax cuts, increased CAFE standards, more federal involvement in education, increases in unemployment taxes, slowing down/stopping the process for allowing oil exploration, handouts for "green" initiatives, more money to Fannie Mae, other stuff I can't think of right now now).

The large corporations in this country have incredible reserves of cash right now. They just don't want to invest or hire because the of uncertainty of what regulation or tax is coming around the corner. In my view, that's one big reason why no one is hiring. Small companies might not have cash but the large ones do (such as those in the S&P 500).

 

[doomsman]

Bad idea!

No more rules
taxes
government
enough is enough!

 

[mxz500rider]

I work graveyard at one job. Usually 45-50 hrs. Also have a part-time day time job. Usually 20-25 hrs. It's not much. But its extra cash. Also work 1 or 2 weekends a month with a friend of mine.

 

[gary_in_neenah]

z z z z z

What? Huh? Oh, sorry I dosed off there for awhile.

Right around 40 with some Flex Time included. (naps don't count)

If you hear these words, "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help". Run for the hills!!!

Minimize government control, level the playing field for imports, and get the heck out of the way.

 

[sixball]

How do you say! No more rules and regulations...!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Many people love and work overtime because they want to.
Others to keep the family going.
I am out of the work force now but worked what ever it took to do the best job I could. Much was casual but in the end I got promotions or bonus money.
The best thing for someone on the outside looking in trying to fix it is to walk away. JMHO

 

[dcsnomo]

IF the administration wanted to create jobs (which is an IF), they would make it clear that they don't plan to implement all the job-killing and money wasting measures they have been planning (cap and trade, Obamacare, anything to do with the EPA, the Dodd/Frank regulations, expiration of tax cuts, increased CAFE standards, more federal involvement in education, increases in unemployment taxes, slowing down/stopping the process for allowing oil exploration, handouts for "green" initiatives, more money to Fannie Mae, other stuff I can't think of right now now).

The large corporations in this country have incredible reserves of cash right now. They just don't want to invest or hire because the of uncertainty of what regulation or tax is coming around the corner. In my view, that's one big reason why no one is hiring. Small companies might not have cash but the large ones do (such as those in the S&P 500).

OK Hoosier, but I see a problem with your logic. So, what the hey, I'm bored, so...

Let's look at it from a short term/long term perspective.
The economy is dead in the water right now. Short term. Why aren't companies hiring right now? Because consumers aren't buying right now. The reason companies aren't hiring isn't because of proposed long term government policies, but because the flat sales volume right now does not require more employees right now.

If a company is experiencing volume growth right now, they will hire right now to make the profit. They are not going to pass on the volume because of the possibility of cap and trade, etc.

On a long term basis, those policies you mention will affect the companies' view on future investment, sure, but that is a driver of future planning and development, not a driver of today's unemployment. It's a driver of future employment.

Companies aren't hiring because volume isn't growing. Volume isn't growing because 16% of the workforce is un/under employed and not buying.

Your policy issue, while valid, is long term, but our jobs crisis is driven by the slamming shut of wallets.

The policy that will have the most impact on immediate employment will be the policies around reducing federal spending. Remember, as the government reduces spending, there will be a wave of layoffs not only in the public sector, but among the various industries that sell to the government. And that is going to be a huge problem.

 

[racerx]

If I took the O.T. away from them I'd never hear the end of it!

That is sure the truth and has been that way the whole time I have been in manufacturing (30years)

Nowadays, at least in my company, they really do not subscribe to its cheaper to do OT vs. hiring as OT is one of the things that is closely watched and brought up frequently, altho to add another employee we need an act of congress to get approved. More often than not they expect us to be more efficient and finds ways to produce more in 40hrs or less

 

[frnash]

… I am out of the work force now but worked what ever it took to do the best job I could. Much was casual but in the end I got promotions or bonus money. …

Ditto here, out of the work force: Retired!

…I'm salary so I work 40 hours + a whole lot of "casual overtime". I usually stay a bit over, and then I am on the phone or email at some point every night. …

Yes, salaried (a.k.a. "exempt") for my entire working career after three years in the ol' U.S. Army. I rarely worked a 40 hour week, more typically 60 or more. However, in one year there was an extended crunch period of 16+ hour days (x 7 days/week) on a software design/implementation project in an "undisclosed location".

Oh sure, the 'fixed' salary was nice, but at tax return time for that year, I made the mistake of computing (annual salary/hours worked), only to discover that I could have earned far more that year digging ditches at the prevailing labor rate, including overtime!

Well at least that effort was instrumental in winning a gazillion dollar Worldwide Military Command and Control System contract with the Defense Communications Agency. (Hmmm, bonus? What bonus? )

 

[toolmaker]

I've been averaging 50 a week so far this year. I work in the tool room of a small custom plastic injection company. About 120 employees total. Their are only 3 of us in my department. All our new molds are built outside. We take care of most of the engineering and customer changes, fixture making, and the constant repairs of worn and broken molds.
After the 09' drop in business we had to revamp the way we did things. Through out the company we all do more with less people. Some of the people in manufacturing get OT and some do not. Their is always that uncertainty of the economy taking a big dip again. And the fact that the banks are still holding tight to money. It's really hard for new and small businesses to borrow money yet. Untill the banks loosen up, a lot of busnesses will be slow.

 

[polarisrider1]

I guess I am exempt from the poll by the rules set up. But I would like to make note that 70 hour weeks where the norm for most the last 30 years. Owning several businesses took that time from me. was it worth it? not sure, but don't think so. My 2nd oldest Son just stopped by at 10pm from his current job. He is salary,doing 13.75 hour days. If the sun shines he works if it rains he does not. Paves driveways for my accounts. Great stay home on rain days, such joy. He has done 55 hours this week and has another sun shiney day on Friday. I told him it is like working directly for me. you "Roll the dice" and hope the work shows up. When it does hang on. if it don't type on John Dee. LOL

 

[xsledder]

This is an economy question...as it seems to me that to get people back to work, stop foreclosures, create income and tax revenue, that we need to change some fundamentals.

It is my premise that companies have learned to do with fewer employees who are working more than 40 hours a week.

If this is true and we could tweak the laws to discourage overtime to current employees in favor of some hiring perhaps in the form of tax credits to companies to generate employment, we would all be better off.

I know a scad of people who are working more than 50 hours per week making good money but tired of just working. They also tell me that they feel that they are "lucky" to be employed, and that the employers 'remind' them of this fact as an implied threat, and so working more doing more than one man's job keeps the economy stagnated by not hiring more men to do the same job.

So.....what do you think? Could Obamanomics incorporate this simple plan to stimulate job growth?

You are joking right? Or where you drunk when you thought of this? I don't like it. This is a progressive way of forcing a social behavior? These types of laws usually affect the small to medium companies that don't have the resources (lobbyists or political donations) to get waivers or back room deals like the big companies. Besides, didn't they give companies a tax credit for hiring last year and that didn't work. So we go from giving companies honey to putting a gun to their head to get them to hire. Companies will hire when they are good and ready to hire!

We put out an ad for a position and got three, a total of three respondents. Where are all the unemployed? Enjoying a vacation while collecting unemployment? (That last question wasn't to insight anger with anyone. It is meant as irony. I thought we would get hundreds of respondents, not three.)

 

[Skidooski]

I'm salaried and work between 50-60 hours a week. Our plant, initial staffed to run three shifts 5 days a week, is now running 24/7. Business is booming!

We are adding a new machine with start-up scheduled for the end of this month and no one to run it. In the production area they are looking for a boat load of people to hire, but minimal applicants. Being located in the "boonies" there must not be a large enough population to support the demand? We are the largest employer in the county.

As Plant engineer and maintenance manager, I'm staffed for a 5 day work week, but down two guys right now and still running 24/7. All my guys are getting a bunch of O.T. just to cover the production needs and new machine installations. Finding people with technal skills is even more difficult in our geographical location.

 

[Hoosier]

OK Hoosier, but I see a problem with your logic. So, what the hey, I'm bored, so...

Let's look at it from a short term/long term perspective.
The economy is dead in the water right now. Short term. Why aren't companies hiring right now? Because consumers aren't buying right now. The reason companies aren't hiring isn't because of proposed long term government policies, but because the flat sales volume right now does not require more employees right now.

If a company is experiencing volume growth right now, they will hire right now to make the profit. They are not going to pass on the volume because of the possibility of cap and trade, etc.

On a long term basis, those policies you mention will affect the companies' view on future investment, sure, but that is a driver of future planning and development, not a driver of today's unemployment. It's a driver of future employment.

Companies aren't hiring because volume isn't growing. Volume isn't growing because 16% of the workforce is un/under employed and not buying.

Your policy issue, while valid, is long term, but our jobs crisis is driven by the slamming shut of wallets.

The policy that will have the most impact on immediate employment will be the policies around reducing federal spending. Remember, as the government reduces spending, there will be a wave of layoffs not only in the public sector, but among the various industries that sell to the government. And that is going to be a huge problem.

I think we agree that business aren't hiring and people aren't buying. You contend that business aren't hiring BECAUSE people aren't buying. That might be true, but I think the primary reason that that business aren't hiring AND people aren't buying is a complete lack of confidence in what tomorrow may bring. Of course nothing is promised to anyone about tomorrow, but I would argue that uncertainty is artificially high right now because of government policies, both those from the past and present that have already put us in a pickle (deficit and debt) and those from the future (i.e., proposed). I blame both parties for this, so I'm not just bashing the current administration. If you look at the other posts in this thread and elsewhere, I think there is evidence that there is a lot work to be done for which, in ordinary circumstances, businesses would be doing more hiring. Instead, because of that uncertainty (and probably because employees are more willing to put up with "abuse" (or whatever you want to call it) right now because of a lack of alternatives), business are instead just asking more of its current workforce. I don't think this can go on in the long-term.

sorry to all is this is discussion has become way off topic