Max Sawicky wrote,
>How do you define the social costs of overtime?
>Not costs to the worker and employer, mind you,
>but to third parties.
>
>That would inform the design of the tax.
I'm not sure I follow you on this one. The social cost of overtime is
unemployment (leaving aside excessive overtime, which might be detrimental
to the worker's health, safety or social participation). This is implicit in
the way that I've defined overtime -- as the amount by which an employee's
hours worked exceeded a ratio of total hours worked/labour force (this could
be a national or regional index, depending on what were the precise policy
objectives). This is not an argument that overtime, as it is conventionally
defined, can readily be converted into equivalent hours of new employment.
The tax takes care of that problem; the hours don't have to be converted.
I'm not sure I follow you because I expect that historical factors would
have more of an influence on design than the definition of social costs. The
definition of social costs would be more important for justifying the tax.
Or is that what you mean by design?
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Know Ware Communications
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 688-8296
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
