Quote:
Originally Posted by taustin
What you seem to be saying is that because you know a couple of people whose employers don't abuse exempt status, nobody else does either.
.
|
No, that is not what I'm saying.
I *am* saying there are entire industries where timeclock politics are not an issue.
That the law as written and common practices all over allow for different work ethics and lifestyles other than "put in the hours and collect the paycheck", that not every business breaks down to a never-ending battle between the "timeclock proletariat" and "leering exploiters". I am saying that there are plenty of people who get more out of work that just a paycheck.
And I'm not talking of just a few people I know personally; if I went that route I'd have to list hundreds in dozens of professions all over the country. Just look at employment listings: an achievement-based work ethic is so prized it is become a buzz word in recruitment --"self-starter". Self-starters are a minority but they are valued. It is expensive to hire slavemasters cracking whips to keep the oarsmen rowing. Better to hire people who enjoy rowing.
The issue at stake is what the law may or not demand, but the law's demands on either side are simply the absolute minimum society expects of people. Expecting more than that from politicians and bureaucrats is fruitless. The law says you have to get paid for doing your job. Everything else is discretionary and negotiable, not mandatory.
SCOTUS ruled nine-zip.
That really says it all; that access control security is, in the eyes of the law, not part of the job. (It applies to suppliers and visitors, not just employees, after all.)
As usual, if you don't like the law, have it changed.