Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Any thoughts on how the new overtime edict from the White House will affect Scout councils, specifically camp staff and the Professional Corps? For those who don't follow the news, as of December 1, 2016, anyone not classified as a "Manager" and making less than $47,476 per year ($913 per week) MUST be paid time and a half for any hours in excess of 40 in any given work week. That's up from the current $23,660 ($455 per week).

 

Personally, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it's going to increase the cost of doing business (inflation). On the other hand, lots of employees get screwed by being arbitrarily titled "Manager" when they are truly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to our council exec this past weekend. They are concerned about this should the rule pass any challenges and be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for the DE's and other administrative positions.  Pay them, or reduce their duties to get their hours under 40.  Duties eliminated can include harping me about Journey to Excellence and Friends of Scouting.

 

Are camp staff treated as employees, or contract workers, considering the limited camping season?  Contract work is still exempt from overtime, as far as I know.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those extra hours needed won't go away. They never do. This will only cause companies to hire additional staff to fill the hours required. Companies would be better off doing that than paying overtime.

 

It is the same thing that happened with health care benefits. Rather than extend benefits to full time workers they simply cut hours. So now instead of one DE that works 50-60 hours you will get two DEs that work 30 hours. Nothing is saved, more complexity introduced, less will get done.

 

Not a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a labor lawyer, however, in my short career running a consulting firm, I learned that you are either an "employee" or an "independent contractor". The difference is in who specifies the "means and methods" of getting a job done. And if you are a contractor, you have to pay your own AND the employer's share of SS and Workman's comp insurance. In my layman's opinion, camp staff would be employees, since they have a boss telling them where to go, when to be there, and how to do the job. If they are not free to do whatever they want, they are "on the clock".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a labor lawyer, however, in my short career running a consulting firm, I learned that you are either an "employee" or an "independent contractor". The difference is in who specifies the "means and methods" of getting a job done. And if you are a contractor, you have to pay your own AND the employer's share of SS and Workman's comp insurance. In my layman's opinion, camp staff would be employees, since they have a boss telling them where to go, when to be there, and how to do the job. If they are not free to do whatever they want, they are "on the clock".

 

Aren't contractors also told when to work, etc? We use contractors all the time. We define the scope of the work, location, hours, etc. They come and go like employees.

 

I think @@Sentinel947 was on camp staff. Maybe he knows how they are treated from a labor perspective. I think a few guys here were camp directors too, maybe they know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you're saying the new regulations will create jobs?  Excellent! 

 

Yes, employers need to decide if a task that takes 60 hours to complete should be done by one full-time, full-benefit employee making extra overtime who will be there for life, or by 2-3 no-benefit part-time employees working 20-30 hours each, who will jump at a full-time job when one comes by, requiring a rehire and retrain.  Or maybe they can automate administrative assistants, or offshore camp directors to Bangladesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is "independent contractors" i.e., free lancers. Your "statement of work" is with the Contractor with whom you have a contract. The people who "come and go" are employees of the Contractor. You don't get to tell the contractor HOW to achieve the statement of work, how many people to hire, what to pay them, etc.

 

Independent contractors are usually "sole proprietors", if I'm not mistaken.

 

The example I always use is the plumber who buys tools and a truck and a yellow pages ad. You hire him to fix your pipes and he comes out usually onHIS schedule, not yours. You don't get to tell him how to dress, what tools to use, or how long to spend. You pay him for results.

 

But this gets complicated, and like I said, I'm not an expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I see happening is that the job of the DE will become more tightly defined. The jobs that should be done by volunteer youth, Scouters and Commissioner staff will simply not get done. I have seen DEs staffing summer camp, chopping wood at camp, conducting training, attending Blue and Golds and Pinewood Derbies, unloading the popcorn truck and other "duties as assigned". Their core duties are "more units, more scouts and more money".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you're saying the new regulations will create jobs?  Excellent! 

 

Yes, employers need to decide if a task that takes 60 hours to complete should be done by one full-time, full-benefit employee making extra overtime who will be there for life, or by 2-3 no-benefit part-time employees working 20-30 hours each, who will jump at a full-time job when one comes by, requiring a rehire and retrain.  Or maybe they can automate administrative assistants, or offshore camp directors to Bangladesh.

 

That's not what happens. 

 

Now, you have someone working 50-60 hours a week and considered a full time employee. They get a salary and benefits.

 

If this rule goes in to effect you now have two people doing the work but they become part time employees, will likely be treated as hourly and not salary employees, will NOT get benefits. The net is that the work still gets done, but that is not what any real economist would call "job creation". Politicians call that job creation, but you are creating burger-flipping jobs, not real career-oriented jobs.

 

This does not drive growth. This does not drive economic stability. It increases the cost to delivery a service (constant retraining and rehiring) and it devalues the role of the worker. This does the opposite of what the government says it wants to do.

Edited by Krampus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is "independent contractors" i.e., free lancers. Your "statement of work" is with the Contractor with whom you have a contract. The people who "come and go" are employees of the Contractor. You don't get to tell the contractor HOW to achieve the statement of work, how many people to hire, what to pay them, etc.

 

 

Absolutely you can. I have seen hundreds of government and non-government contracts the spell out exactly how the contractor will execute the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's precisely why the Govt pays 2-3x more than it should cost for a given result.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does not drive growth. This does not drive economic stability. It increases the cost to delivery a service (constant retraining and rehiring) and it devalues the role of the worker. This does the opposite of what the government says it wants to do.

 

Yah, hmmm...

 

Of course it doesn't drive growth or economic stability.  Not sure why it would, eh?  Growth is driven by population, productivity, and innovation.  Economic stability is driven by lots more than that. Yah, and of course growth and economic stability are opposite things, eh? :rolleyes:

 

Treatin' workers fairly does help with social stability, of course. Da McDonald's "manager" is still flippin' burgers and fillin' shake cups after all. 

 

Like I said, this is really just gettin' us back to da level we were at in previous decades, eh?  A bit less, actually.  It's an ordinary adjustment for inflation, not somethin' unusual or nefarious.  As such it shouldn't really affect scout councils if they've been livin' up to da Oath and Law right along. ;)

 

Beavah

Edited by Beavah
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't contractors also told when to work, etc? We use contractors all the time. We define the scope of the work, location, hours, etc. They come and go like employees.

 

I think @@Sentinel947 was on camp staff. Maybe he knows how they are treated from a labor perspective. I think a few guys here were camp directors too, maybe they know?

We were treated as full time, seasonal staff. I think Summer camp staff is exempt as part of non profit seasonal business. I was a director and my total compensation pay+ food+ lodging barely cracked minimium wage.

 

This change has good intentions. Dunkin Donut managers shouldnt have to work 55-60 hours a week for 23k. But like any well meaning government policy, there are unintended consequences.

 

This DOL overtime wage, as well as minimium wage, should be indexed to inflation so it will stop being a political football.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×