<Removed>

[Woodruff]

Is there an effective difference between being against the scientific method and actively promoting ideas and beliefs that run completely counter to the use of the scientific method?

I mean, when your belief system includes things such as "matter is not real" and "illness is in the mind and not the body", that really is counter to anything that could be considered as following the scientific method. By actively promoting these ideas, they are acting against the promotion of the scientific method.

You know, when you try to argue along these lines, I have to resist the temptation to reply that "the bullets are not real."

One of the uh...weaker...episodes, as far as storyline goes. I actually like that they tried to do something with the OK Corral situation and the whole "bullets are not real" idea was interesting...but the plot device of the alien in charge of things was really horribly weak. Great potential that was wasted, in my opinion.

But all of that aside, it almost sounds like you're an apologist for Christian Scientists (NOT "scientists who are Christians", for the morons among us who can't follow a discussion). Do you believe those things AREN'T acting against the promotion of the scientific method?

But never the less, I can't see how such an attitude would cause people to be exceptionally paranoid of electron microscope funding.

Or basic hygiene even.

[Juan_Bottom]

Couple questions on this video.

1. "Well at the end of the year, it will be returned to you". Hilarious. Plus if you don't get your overtime money right away, you get it at the end of the year with no interest. That definitely sounds like a government idea already but with tax dollars. Except the gov't currently does it on all wages earned, not just overtime money.
2. So if you work 5 hours overtime, which in this equation comes out to $75, then you get $75 worth of comp time, wouldn't that be 7.5 hours of time off? Most places doing comp time now do a 5 hours OT for 5 hours off later on. I've never seen one give you 1.5 times the hours you worked.
3. Your boss already doesn't have to give you the day off that you need, is that correct? So that's not changing, is it?
4. Can the boss currently choose to not schedule you for overtime now?
5. Pretty sure the boss can't actually fire you because you choose to take cash rather than comp time.
6. The forgot to mention that part of the goal on this is to kill puppies.

I wouldn't say i support this effort by the house but this video is pretty absurd and I wouldn't call it a scandal.

1) That's not true. You can opt-out of paying all of your income taxes, then pay what's due at the end of the year instead. Over-paying your taxes is entirely a choice.
2) I have no idea what you're talking about.
3) They're saying that comp time can be used as leverage against an employee.
4) Yes, but they're saying that comp time can be used as leverage.
5) Your boss can fire you for anything, they just can't lie about their reasons. They can fire you for being too ugly, or too pretty. That's their choice.

[patrickaa317]

Couple questions on this video.

1. "Well at the end of the year, it will be returned to you". Hilarious. Plus if you don't get your overtime money right away, you get it at the end of the year with no interest. That definitely sounds like a government idea already but with tax dollars. Except the gov't currently does it on all wages earned, not just overtime money.
2. So if you work 5 hours overtime, which in this equation comes out to $75, then you get $75 worth of comp time, wouldn't that be 7.5 hours of time off? Most places doing comp time now do a 5 hours OT for 5 hours off later on. I've never seen one give you 1.5 times the hours you worked.
3. Your boss already doesn't have to give you the day off that you need, is that correct? So that's not changing, is it?
4. Can the boss currently choose to not schedule you for overtime now?
5. Pretty sure the boss can't actually fire you because you choose to take cash rather than comp time.
6. The forgot to mention that part of the goal on this is to kill puppies.

I wouldn't say i support this effort by the house but this video is pretty absurd and I wouldn't call it a scandal.

1) That's not true. You can opt-out of paying all of your income taxes, then pay what's due at the end of the year instead. Over-paying your taxes is entirely a choice.
2) I have no idea what you're talking about.
3) They're saying that comp time can be used as leverage against an employee.
4) Yes, but they're saying that comp time can be used as leverage.
5) Your boss can fire you for anything, they just can't lie about their reasons. They can fire you for being too ugly, or too pretty. That's their choice.

1. Not a tax professional here but can this be done through claiming higher exemptions with your employer? Is that not a form of tax fraud? Could be wrong on that.
2. Example: Today, I work 45 hours in a week. My boss tells me I can take off five hours next week since I had five extra last week. My understanding from the video is that the guy who worked an extra 5 hours, now has $75 worth of comp time he can use. At $10/hour, he has 7.5 hours worth of time. To me that seems to be a good option to the worker. The video did do a pretty poor job of explaining this and focused more on trying to demonize the bill rather than outline actual situations so perhaps you and I are just coming away with two different understandings of what the video maker was trying to say.
3. How are they going to use comp time as an extra point of leverage? "you can't have the day off because you have comp time"? or "I would give you the day off but because you have comp time, i am going to make you work instead". Not seeing how someone having built up hours can be used as leverage for not giving them time off.
4. Give an example of how it works today and how it might work if this bill passed, again not sure how this would increase leverage for employers to not give time off.
5. OK, so I assume you'd agree that part was just extra mongering in the video and really serves no relation to the new bill in the house since it's not changing how things are done today.

[thegreekdog]

1) That's not true. You can opt-out of paying all of your income taxes, then pay what's due at the end of the year instead. Over-paying your taxes is entirely a choice.

Actually you cannot pay all your taxes at the end of the year without incurring both interest and penalties.

[Woodruff]

1) That's not true. You can opt-out of paying all of your income taxes, then pay what's due at the end of the year instead. Over-paying your taxes is entirely a choice.

Actually you cannot pay all your taxes at the end of the year without incurring both interest and penalties.

I always thought you could do it without penalty, but you had to pay the interest. Granted, I've never done that because it just seems easier to me to have the bill come in smaller bites rather than one big one.

[tzor]

One of the uh...weaker...episodes, as far as storyline goes. I actually like that they tried to do something with the OK Corral situation and the whole "bullets are not real" idea was interesting...but the plot device of the alien in charge of things was really horribly weak. Great potential that was wasted, in my opinion.

I used to think that the whole plot was weak. It took a lot more real science fiction to give it sense. My biggest objection was why didn't they realize everything was a sham, but now I can see how it was somewhat a dream like state and how the mind in such a state forces incompleteness and inconsistencies into what it perceives as reality. Even Spock is completely fooled; only the inconsistent logic of science alerts him to the non reality.

But all of that aside, it almost sounds like you're an apologist for Christian Scientists (NOT "scientists who are Christians", for the morons among us who can't follow a discussion). Do you believe those things AREN'T acting against the promotion of the scientific method?

I'm certainly no apologist, although I do place a far greater worry in Creationists than I do Christian Scientists.

[thegreekdog]

1) That's not true. You can opt-out of paying all of your income taxes, then pay what's due at the end of the year instead. Over-paying your taxes is entirely a choice.

Actually you cannot pay all your taxes at the end of the year without incurring both interest and penalties.

I always thought you could do it without penalty, but you had to pay the interest. Granted, I've never done that because it just seems easier to me to have the bill come in smaller bites rather than one big one.

The federal government takes the position (which tax professionsl take for granted, unfortunately) that dollars collected under personal income tax withholding laws are the government's dollars when they are normally collected. On the other hand, I have yet to receive any interest from the federal government or penalties from the federal government on any refunds I've received. Oh well.

[patrickaa317]

1) That's not true. You can opt-out of paying all of your income taxes, then pay what's due at the end of the year instead. Over-paying your taxes is entirely a choice.

Actually you cannot pay all your taxes at the end of the year without incurring both interest and penalties.

I always thought you could do it without penalty, but you had to pay the interest. Granted, I've never done that because it just seems easier to me to have the bill come in smaller bites rather than one big one.

The federal government takes the position (which tax professionsl take for granted, unfortunately) that dollars collected under personal income tax withholding laws are the government's dollars when they are normally collected. On the other hand, I have yet to receive any interest from the federal government or penalties from the federal government on any refunds I've received. Oh well.

Right. Did you see the outrage in the video when they suggested the company you work for could possibly do the same thing? Juan even considers this house bill scandalous. Imagine what he is currently thinking about Benghazi, IRS profiling, and the DOJ wiretappings going on.

[Juan_Bottom]

2. Example: Today, I work 45 hours in a week. My boss tells me I can take off five hours next week since I had five extra last week. My understanding from the video is that the guy who worked an extra 5 hours, now has $75 worth of comp time he can use. At $10/hour, he has 7.5 hours worth of time. To me that seems to be a good option to the worker. The video did do a pretty poor job of explaining this and focused more on trying to demonize the bill rather than outline actual situations so perhaps you and I are just coming away with two different understandings of what the video maker was trying to say.

If you work 45 hours one week, and 35 the next week, it doesn't balance out.
8-8-8!!!, that's the cry of our forbearers. It's labor history.
You're losing your half-pay for those 5 hours OT, which is pretty much your boss stealing money from you. People died over this.

3. How are they going to use comp time as an extra point of leverage? "you can't have the day off because you have comp time"? or "I would give you the day off but because you have comp time, i am going to make you work instead". Not seeing how someone having built up hours can be used as leverage for not giving them time off.

4. Give an example of how it works today and how it might work if this bill passed, again not sure how this would increase leverage for employers to not give time off.

It's leverage that a boss can use between employees.
"Rita gets more hours because she takes comp time. Take comp time and then you can get your 40."
or
"We only hire Comp time here. You work 60 hours a week."
They wouldn't even need to come out and say it, they'd just schedule the workers that way. A bad business can do well for itself by forcing employees to give it small loans like this.

Overall, it's all Fffffff-ed. It's labor history. If you ask for your pay-out, instead of vacation, your company gets a 30 day window to pay you. They pay no interest on your money. There's nothing that says they have to give you any vacation time that you request, and there's no protection for employees who are forced to take comp time or are fired. So if your son winds up in the hospital or something, your boss doesn't have to give you your comp time off and he or she gets 30 days before he or she has to give you your money. Who can wait 30 days in an emergency?
Worst case scenario:
You work 60 hours a week, for 40 hours a week's pay. You ask for your Comp Time off, you're denied. 180 hours @ work later, you're given 8 hours of Comp Time off, but that means that you've lost your half time pay for 8 hours that you worked. So you ask for your money, and you don't get your pay for 30 days.
Finally, at the end of the year, you get whatever is on your payout, with no interest, and you've lost your half-time pay as well.
Overworked and underpaid. As 1/2 of Americans are low income or poor, it's a safe bet that they will suffer very badly.

Right. Did you see the outrage in the video when they suggested the company you work for could possibly do the same thing? Juan even considers this house bill scandalous. Imagine what he is currently thinking about Benghazi, IRS profiling, and the DOJ wiretappings going on.

A job's a job.
The government protects me from rapists and stuff.
And it's not the same thing. Not nearly.
Since I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but rather a historian, I think I'll complain about the things that are a greater worry.

[ooge]

2. Example: Today, I work 45 hours in a week. My boss tells me I can take off five hours next week since I had five extra last week. My understanding from the video is that the guy who worked an extra 5 hours, now has $75 worth of comp time he can use. At $10/hour, he has 7.5 hours worth of time. To me that seems to be a good option to the worker. The video did do a pretty poor job of explaining this and focused more on trying to demonize the bill rather than outline actual situations so perhaps you and I are just coming away with two different understandings of what the video maker was trying to say.

If you work 45 hours one week, and 35 the next week, it doesn't balance out.
8-8-8!!!, that's the cry of our forbearers. It's labor history.
You're losing your half-pay for those 5 hours OT, which is pretty much your boss stealing money from you. People died over this.

3. How are they going to use comp time as an extra point of leverage? "you can't have the day off because you have comp time"? or "I would give you the day off but because you have comp time, i am going to make you work instead". Not seeing how someone having built up hours can be used as leverage for not giving them time off.

4. Give an example of how it works today and how it might work if this bill passed, again not sure how this would increase leverage for employers to not give time off.

It's leverage that a boss can use between employees.
"Rita gets more hours because she takes comp time. Take comp time and then you can get your 40."
or
"We only hire Comp time here. You work 60 hours a week."
They wouldn't even need to come out and say it, they'd just schedule the workers that way. A bad business can do well for itself by forcing employees to give it small loans like this.

Overall, it's all Fffffff-ed. It's labor history. If you ask for your pay-out, instead of vacation, your company gets a 30 day window to pay you. They pay no interest on your money. There's nothing that says they have to give you any vacation time that you request, and there's no protection for employees who are forced to take comp time or are fired. So if your son winds up in the hospital or something, your boss doesn't have to give you your comp time off and he or she gets 30 days before he or she has to give you your money. Who can wait 30 days in an emergency?
Worst case scenario:
You work 60 hours a week, for 40 hours a week's pay. You ask for your Comp Time off, you're denied. 180 hours @ work later, you're given 8 hours of Comp Time off, but that means that you've lost your half time pay for 8 hours that you worked. So you ask for your money, and you don't get your pay for 30 days.
Finally, at the end of the year, you get whatever is on your payout, with no interest, and you've lost your half-time pay as well.
Overworked and underpaid. As 1/2 of Americans are low income or poor, it's a safe bet that they will suffer very badly.

Right. Did you see the outrage in the video when they suggested the company you work for could possibly do the same thing? Juan even considers this house bill scandalous. Imagine what he is currently thinking about Benghazi, IRS profiling, and the DOJ wiretappings going on.

A job's a job.
The government protects me from rapists and stuff.
And it's not the same thing. Not nearly.
Since I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but rather a historian, I think I'll complain about the things that are a greater worry.

it makes it a lot easier to understand if you accept the republican party wants to send the country back to 1920's

[patrickaa317]

2. Example: Today, I work 45 hours in a week. My boss tells me I can take off five hours next week since I had five extra last week. My understanding from the video is that the guy who worked an extra 5 hours, now has $75 worth of comp time he can use. At $10/hour, he has 7.5 hours worth of time. To me that seems to be a good option to the worker. The video did do a pretty poor job of explaining this and focused more on trying to demonize the bill rather than outline actual situations so perhaps you and I are just coming away with two different understandings of what the video maker was trying to say.

If you work 45 hours one week, and 35 the next week, it doesn't balance out.
8-8-8!!!, that's the cry of our forbearers. It's labor history.
You're losing your half-pay for those 5 hours OT, which is pretty much your boss stealing money from you. People died over this.

3. How are they going to use comp time as an extra point of leverage? "you can't have the day off because you have comp time"? or "I would give you the day off but because you have comp time, i am going to make you work instead". Not seeing how someone having built up hours can be used as leverage for not giving them time off.

4. Give an example of how it works today and how it might work if this bill passed, again not sure how this would increase leverage for employers to not give time off.

It's leverage that a boss can use between employees.
"Rita gets more hours because she takes comp time. Take comp time and then you can get your 40."
or
"We only hire Comp time here. You work 60 hours a week."
They wouldn't even need to come out and say it, they'd just schedule the workers that way. A bad business can do well for itself by forcing employees to give it small loans like this.

Overall, it's all Fffffff-ed. It's labor history. If you ask for your pay-out, instead of vacation, your company gets a 30 day window to pay you. They pay no interest on your money. There's nothing that says they have to give you any vacation time that you request, and there's no protection for employees who are forced to take comp time or are fired. So if your son winds up in the hospital or something, your boss doesn't have to give you your comp time off and he or she gets 30 days before he or she has to give you your money. Who can wait 30 days in an emergency?
Worst case scenario:
You work 60 hours a week, for 40 hours a week's pay. You ask for your Comp Time off, you're denied. 180 hours @ work later, you're given 8 hours of Comp Time off, but that means that you've lost your half time pay for 8 hours that you worked. So you ask for your money, and you don't get your pay for 30 days.
Finally, at the end of the year, you get whatever is on your payout, with no interest, and you've lost your half-time pay as well.
Overworked and underpaid. As 1/2 of Americans are low income or poor, it's a safe bet that they will suffer very badly.

Right. Did you see the outrage in the video when they suggested the company you work for could possibly do the same thing? Juan even considers this house bill scandalous. Imagine what he is currently thinking about Benghazi, IRS profiling, and the DOJ wiretappings going on.

A job's a job.
The government protects me from rapists and stuff.
And it's not the same thing. Not nearly.
Since I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but rather a historian, I think I'll complain about the things that are a greater worry.

Yeah, currently the 45 & 35 does not balance out, the bill states you are now given $75 worth of comp time, which is that 50% you are worried about. This would be an improvement in your eyes for the reason you outline. Get passed the party of the author of the bill and look at the bill instead. Well I'm going based on what the video explained it to be anyway, go to 1:04 in the video you posted.

Your example of a boss hiring someone to work 60 hours a week and forcing them to take comp time (in which they just have deferred OT payments at very very worst case scenario) is pretty weak. Why wouldn't a boss hire two people for 30 hours and pay 0 hours overtime?

Assuming $10/hour, 20 hours overtime. That is $300 overtime. At 3% interest (which is higher than most places would give you at the moment), it would be $9 per year, if you prorate that into a thirty day window, it's less than a dollar of interest you are missing out on. That's one of the biggest complaints around this bill?

How is the treatment different today if your son ends up in the hospital? Does your boss currently have to give you that time off and no longer does if this passes?

but that means that you've lost your half time pay for 8 hours that you worked.

I see this as you are given 12 hours comp time for the 8 hours OT you worked. Can you show me in the bill where it's a one hour comp for one hour OT worked? I have a different understanding based on video you linked to, again 1:04 in the video

You do not lose your half time on your deferred overtime money if you get it at the end of the year. Go to 1:18 in the video.

1/2 of Americans are low income or poor yet the price of gas has went up over 10% in my area in the last two days! Are you outraged over that as that has to be killing the working man trying to get to his job?

I looked up the bill for you and check this out:

‘(1) GENERAL RULE- An employee may receive, in accordance with this subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.

‘(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employees and not as a condition of employment.

No employee may receive or agree to receive compensatory time off under this subsection unless the employee has worked at least 1,000 hours for the employee’s employer during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month period before the date of agreement or receipt of compensatory time off.

‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.

‘(4) PRIVATE EMPLOYER ACTIONS- An employer that provides compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of--

‘(A) interfering with such employee’s rights under this subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or

‘(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.

Thoughts now that I've helped give you information directly from the bill rather than your www.democratsrule-republicanssuck.com website?

[Juan_Bottom]

I looked up the bill for you and check this out:


‘(1) GENERAL RULE- An employee may receive, in accordance with this subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.
‘(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employees and not as a condition of employment.
No employee may receive or agree to receive compensatory time off under this subsection unless the employee has worked at least 1,000 hours for the employee’s employer during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month period before the date of agreement or receipt of compensatory time off.
‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.
‘(4) PRIVATE EMPLOYER ACTIONS- An employer that provides compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of--
‘(A) interfering with such employee’s rights under this subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or
‘(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.



Thoughts now that I've helped give you information directly from the bill rather than your http://www.democratsrule-republicanssuck.com website?

Yeah,...
This sounds like something my boss would say, as if I'm stupid enough to trust him. You're being very passively naive.
None of this is enforced, at all. There's no agency to report abuse to. All an employee can do is get a lawyer and sue. With 50% of the country having negative assets, who can afford that? This "protection" all sounds great, if you don't think about it...

And what's up with the political divide? Everyone hates this bill. Everyone. If it was so great, America's workers would embrace it. In the least the unions would, if only to strengthen their bargaining power. But nobody supports this crap.

Your example of a boss hiring someone to work 60 hours a week and forcing them to take comp time (in which they just have deferred OT payments at very very worst case scenario) is pretty weak. Why wouldn't a boss hire two people for 30 hours and pay 0 hours overtime?

Why would you ever hire two people when you only need to hire one?
That's less benefits to pay out. The incentive would be to hire less workers, and still get more work done when you need it. It's much cheaper in the long run.
If you have a busy period you force your workers to work overtime instead of hiring extra help. Then when things slow down, you force them to use their comp time. It's much cheaper for a large business to operate that way. There goes your 8-8-8.

How is the treatment different today if your son ends up in the hospital? Does your boss currently have to give you that time off and no longer does if this passes?

No he doesn't. But at least you'd already have your money in your hand to help meet any financial crisis. You would not have to wait 30 goddamn days for your money... Or give the company a fat loan on the hope that you'd have this time off when you needed it, only to be dismissed. How frustrating would that be to the worker working overtime?
This gets especially hart-wrenching when you think about single parent. They could be working crazy overtime hours, without the extra income. So how are they supposed to pay for the extra cost of having someone take care of their child? People need their overtime pay.

Assuming $10/hour, 20 hours overtime. That is $300 overtime. At 3% interest (which is higher than most places would give you at the moment), it would be $9 per year, if you prorate that into a thirty day window, it's less than a dollar of interest you are missing out on. That's one of the biggest complaints around this bill?

Who cares?
These institutions are allowed to negotiate for loan rates, and they have a lot of capital on hand to loan out. Our American workers have 0 ability to negotiate any loan rate, and they don't have the money to loan out. 50% of Americans are low income or below the poverty line. If I'm going to loan out a 5th of my income, I'm gonna need to see 100,000% interest, because I need that money to get by.

I see this as you are given 12 hours comp time for the 8 hours OT you worked. Can you show me in the bill where it's a one hour comp for one hour OT worked? I have a different understanding based on video you linked to, again 1:04 in the video

And I can't tell if you're doing research or just arguing the video.
I got that from President Leo W. Gerard. I haven't read the bill. And as the AFL-CIO explained, you work all this overtime, and get time off later, yeah it's paid time off, but it's money you already earned,.. so you were going to get it anyway. You're just losing out on the extra pay.

[thegreekdog]

A few questions about this proposed law:

What employees does it apply to? All employees of all companies? Just union employees? Just government employees? Just hourly employees?

I must admit, I've read Juan's posts here and I'm very confused about the purpose of this proposed law.

[Symmetry]

A few questions about this proposed law:

What employees does it apply to? All employees of all companies? Just union employees? Just government employees? Just hourly employees?

I must admit, I've read Juan's posts here and I'm very confused about the purpose of this law.

I'm confused now. I didn't think this was law.

[thegreekdog]

A few questions about this proposed law:

What employees does it apply to? All employees of all companies? Just union employees? Just government employees? Just hourly employees?

I must admit, I've read Juan's posts here and I'm very confused about the purpose of this law.

I'm confused now. I didn't think this was law.

I despise you... fixed in original (note that I did say "proposed law" in the first sentence).