Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:24:34AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > But also makes eligible for overtime people who were not previously,
> > because it raises the annual income under which you *have* to get
> > overtime from something under $8000 to something over $21,000, which
> > will at least help the poorest workers. (But what's the minimum wage
> > now? If it's $5.15, and you worked 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a
> > year, you'd be just a little above the $8000, at $10,300 a year.
> > But working at twice the minimum wage, if it's $5.15, you'd still
> > automatically get overtime....)
>
> Is there anything to prevent the companies getting around this by firing
> someone, then hiring them back as a contractor/consultant with no
> benefits and no rules on hourly pay?
Possibly, but last I was aware, there were laws about who you could call a
contractor/consultant and who had to be an *employee*. If they set your
hours and you have to work at their facility, they can't make you a
contractor or consultant. (At least, this was the law in Texas last time
I was aware of it.) As for benefits, I imagine a number of companies that
can take care of that in quasi-legal ways have already done so. (Frex: I
have been told that if you want benefits working at Albertson's, you have
to work 40 hours a week for 90 days. So they'll give you fewer than 40
hours on your 13th week, and you have to start over on the 90-day period,
unless you know about it in advance and threaten them with whatever action
is appropriate in your state if they don't give you the 40 friggin' hours
that 13th week.)
Now, if you're working a white-collar job and you can walk in and out with
your work laptop, they could probably get away with it, but in that case,
you're probably being paid more than $22K a year and have the sense to at
least *look* for something more palatable.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
