Smasharoo wrote:
I assume it's an actual salaried position, not an hourly position being paid a salary so as to avoid overtime. If you are offered that, run.
This isn't something that exists.
I know. And yet, there are idiots who continually prattle on about how salary is a rip off because they assume that there are jobs that are hourly jobs but are paid salary just so the employer can avoid paying overtime.
Quote:
The only reason salaries are paid is to avoid overtime.
Sigh. And yet, amazingly enough, salary and hourly pay schedules existed prior to overtime laws. How can that be? Perhaps there are labor and wage forces out there that aren't dependent on government regulation. Oh wait! Can't talk about those because your ideological goals require that people believe otherwise. Got it.
Quote:
It's not a status symbol, this is concept you have been sold because you are a giant sucker.
Yeah. Salaries are paid to managers and higher skilled professionals Smash. For a host of reasons unrelated to labor laws. I get that you don't like to admit this, but that is the fact. And yes, if you are receiving a salary it generally means that you are judged to be a step above those who are being paid an hourly wage in terms of labor value. Not sure what definition of status you're using, but by most people's that means that being paid salary instead of hourly *is* a status symbol. Cause.... wait for it... it represents that you have a higher "status" in the labor market than those who are paid an hourly wage.
Quote:
Low level jobs aren't salaries *because of federal law* not because they are low level jobs.
You really believe this, don't you? Wow. Just.... wow.
Quote:
If Wal-Mart could pay employees $1000 a month for full time work and schedule them for 60 hour work weeks they would do that instantly.
First off, they couldn't, because no one would work for that salary.
Second off, they couldn't, because no one would work that many hours without extra compensation.
Thirdly, you really do have a blind spot to the existence of labor forces in the market.
Yes. They'd do that "if they could". But your flaw is assuming that it's just government regulation that prevents them from doing so. I get why you believe this, but it's an amazingly myopic view of the issue. They'd pay nothing "if they could". They'd wave a magic wand and make piles of money appear "if they could". That's a meaningless argument to make. Wal-Mart has to pay their employees a fair wage based on the market in which they compete. Else, their employees will leave them and go work for their competition (or, well, anyone else in any other low skill profession since it's not like their any less capable of working at a dozen other jobs instead).
Overwhelmingly businesses pay workers an hourly wage because those workers don't work regular hours or they may not require them to work full time hours or any of a number of factors that prevent the worker from being able to command a fixed salary. Yes. Command. Employers don't choose to pay salary if they could just pay for hours on the clock. Again, I get that you want to pretend this is otherwise, but that is actually the case. Because in the real world, employers do not actually hold all the cards.
