Your understanding of "salary" is probably not in line with law, though it depends on your industry and state. It's very complicated (you can make a good living specializing in it as a lawyer). Here is a 5-minute rundown.
For most people in most industries, their "salary" is the minimum amount they can expect to receive from their employer each week, no matter how much they work. If this situation does not apply to you, then you become a non-exempt employee and are subject to all the hourly rules like overtime. This is the part that probably trips you up, as it leads to a lot of misunderstanding:
However, whether an employee is paid on a salary basis is a "fact," and thus specific evaluation of particular circumstances is necessary. Whether an employee is paid on a salary basis is not affected by whether pay is expressed in hourly terms (as this is a fairly common requirement of many payroll computer programs), but whether the employee in fact has a "guaranteed minimum" amount of pay s/he can count on.
In other words, just because your payroll system requires you to fill out a timesheet with 80 hours and your check seems to agree does not mean that is anything more than an implementation detail.
Thank you...I'd been reading all of the posts here, wondering if there might be some petition or other forum to express our anger over this change. But, I'm perfectly happy to do it the old fashioned way.
ISPs do not provide a "free market". Many people only have a single option, and the ISPs are taking huge advantages because they're able to act in monopolistic ways. That's not a free market. Want to see a free market?...look at how competition has been heating up in the cellphone service provider market.
Your failure to understand that the vast majority of the nation has 1-3 ISP options, which makes them virtual monopolies. It's not basic capitalism when there's no competition. You could have made that argument back in the days of dial up, but not today. Monopolistic behavior needs to be regulated. We've let way too many top level mergers occur, and we're ending up with only one choice (if you could call it a choice).
True, though there are several example of SCOTUS allowing ex post facto laws to slide.
While it's certainly been building up over time, I'd argue that the polarization really kicked in with identity politics. When you start stereotyping (alienating) people into categories, you end up with nothing but hard liners. You even see it within the parties because if you're not towing the party line, you're a "RINO" or some such bullshit. I don't need a party to tell me what to think. This crap needs to stop, the name calling needs to stop, or I'm afraid to speculate where this will all end up. If you're unable to speak in a calm, polite, manner to those you disagree with, you're part of the problem.
Does *anyone* care about this stupid subject, except insofar as it's an example of developer-driven solution-in-need-of-a-problem that the gullible proles may be tricked into believing they need?
And yet the vast majority of small business owners are republicans. I guess they just don't know the party is out to get them. Thanks for clarifying that.
I've been working on computers since most of
Where you're going wrong in this way of thinking is that it's not a free market when you're dealing with a virtual monopoly. Back in the 90s it mostly was still, but not when you're down to just one or two options for service. Monopolies need to be well regulated...period. When they no longer have to compete, they simply find new ways to jack up your costs. And I'm saying that as a life-long fiscal conservative.
It's great that you'd like to be altruistic, and hopefully others will be as well, consider it good karma, or just the right thing to do.. However, it's not up to you to decide what others should do with their hard earned money. If they want to blow it on hookers, drugs, and fast cars, that's their prerogative, they earned it...it's part of the incentive to do that hard work. Take that incentive away, and you'll end up with the vast majority doing the minimum to get by...there are plenty of examples of that.
FWIW, my spouse and I are in the 2%, and soon to be retiring after 40+ yrs of work. While I plan to do some volunteer work, and continue my charitable donations, as well as support a mother & mother-in-law who'd be destitute w/o us. I also plan to use a lot of it to just enjoy what time we have left...we earned it (not directed at parent...please don't start with the daddy gave you crap...I grew up poor and inherited nothing.).
my salaried position requires me to work 40 hours a week, or more if the company decides I need to
That's probably against your state's work rules, but calling them out on it will likely cause you more grief than it is worth. They don't get to dodge overtime rules without also accepting the loss of the ability to demand 40 hours.
They should not be using company resources for personal projects, but like the 40 hour rule this is also widely disregarded. You can fire people for any reason in most states, so as an employer why use hours when it can get you in trouble? Just make up whatever reason you want, so long as you can back it up.
It depends, though. At least in most of the US (it varies by state), a salaried employee is supposedly being compensated for the job that they do, not the hours that they keep. If the job requires certain hours, then technically you should be using hourly employees. There are obviously fuzzy areas, and many, many businesses play fast and loose with the rules. Anyway, if the employee is salaried is doing what is asked of them, then they are still guilty of using company resources for a personal project. But that's a far lesser sin than "stealing" hours, which is what is implied in the question.
Tough talk, AC.
CO2 emissions have fuck-all to do with what's being discussed. Should I discuss breakfast cereals? It's just as relevant.
Again, you say "that site sucks": either show where their FACTS are wrong, or stfu.
Another megabytes the dust.