Ski Resort Managers Rejoice!

[VTKilarney]

The real tragedy here is that Puck It has so much vacation time after the ski season.


.

 

[JimG.]

Don't count on a pay raise. And it's not official yet, is it?

Quite the opposite, expect hourly wages to be adjusted down to make up for the mandatory OT. Or, look for a big cut in hours to avoid OT completely. I would not be surprised to see a cut in hours big enough for businesses to kill two birds with one stone...avoiding OT and providing health insurance.

And the consumer should expect a decrease in customer service because workers are unlikely to be added.

 

[Puck it]

I put in my 50+ too and take calls on vacation.

That said, I do so by choice.

When I was putting in 80+ in a F&B management positions, it was not by choice. It was the unwillingness of Intrawest and other large corporate entities to hire additional management/supervisor help and setting forth unreasonable expectations for labor cost percentages on line level staff.

The regulations are needed to protect such workers from those unreasonable work environments.

Not really by choice, if you don't then expect your review to reflect it. Thus the raise.

 

[Puck it]

The real tragedy here is that Puck It has so much vacation time after the ski season.


.

I take calls when I am skiing too.

 

[SkiFanE]

Salary should be salary. I don't want to punch a clock as a salaried employee. Then my 32 hour weeks are over! Ugh. But seriously - I have a job to do. I do it. For most of May/June it was 50 hrs - but project is on cruise control now so, back to normal. It all evens out. I am paid to carry pager tho - I would never do it otherwise. I also NEVER check in during vacation. I have strict boundaries around that, no matter what. As long as people know you never check email on vacation they are fine with it. It's those that do check that have problems - because others expect an answer even if you're in vaca. I get high marks every year for reliability and dependability - so what I do works. Makes up for the shit scores on quality (lmao - just kidding).

This is is a BAD move - and corporations will be the winners, guaranteed.

 

[SkiFanE]

Not really by choice, if you don't then expect your review to reflect it. Thus the raise.

Raise first year here was 2%. Last year, no raises for anyone. In my line of work - you have to jump around to get what you're worth - there is no such thing as a good raise. No incentive to go above and beyond for 0% (while Jnsurance premiums and co-pays go up). Turnover is very high - in 20+ years I've only had 2 managers for longer than a year - waiting out my current one - she's about 10mos in lol.

 

[JimG.]

This is is a BAD move - and corporations will be the winners, guaranteed.

As usual no matter which party is in office.

 

[Jully]

While I do think many of the complaints are valid and cutoffs like that are arbitrary, I do think something needs to be done because salaried employees under 50k working massively long weeks just isn't fair. I also don't think that businesses on their own are going to adjust that, at least not the majority of businesses in the near future. It's not perfect, but I think the 50k will be a step in the right direction

 

[JimG.]

While I do think many of the complaints are valid and cutoffs like that are arbitrary, I do think something needs to be done because salaried employees under 50k working massively long weeks just isn't fair. I also don't think that businesses on their own are going to adjust that, at least not the majority of businesses in the near future. It's not perfect, but I think the 50k will be a step in the right direction

While I agree it may not be fair, we live in a capitalist society based on supply and demand. Right now, there is an overabundance of labor and scare employment opportunites. For every worker who complains that it isn't fair for them to work long hours without OT at a job that pays $49,000 there are 10 out of work people who would gladly take that job and work for $48,000 or even $40,000 without OT. That's just a fact. And you can bet the house that this is exactly what businesses will take advantage of to counteract this legislation.

So I'm not sure this is any kind of solution or even a step in the right direction.

 

[ScottySkis]

As usual no matter which party is in office.

+10)/so corrupt .

 

[deadheadskier]

While I agree it may not be fair, we live in a capitalist society based on supply and demand. Right now, there is an overabundance of labor and scare employment opportunites. For every worker who complains that it isn't fair for them to work long hours without OT at a job that pays $49,000 there are 10 out of work people who would gladly take that job and work for $48,000 or even $40,000 without OT. That's just a fact. And you can bet the house that this is exactly what businesses will take advantage of to counteract this legislation.

So I'm not sure this is any kind of solution or even a step in the right direction.

I don't think it's as cut and dry as salary paid out and hours worked.

When I was in management I always hired based upon quality of production. I'd rather pay someone a bit more that can do a job well in 40-50 hours and be happy than someone willing to work longer hours for less pay who either doesn't get the same results or is miserable while doing it.

Some companies like Costco and the Container Store get this philosophy and have great brands.

 

[JimG.]

I don't think it's as cut and dry as salary paid out and hours worked.

When I was in management I always hired based upon quality of production. I'd rather pay someone a bit more that can do a job well in 40-50 hours and be happy than someone willing to work longer hours for less pay who either doesn't get the same results or is miserable while doing it.

Some companies like Costco and the Container Store get this philosophy and have great brands.

I agree with you on this...some companies do get it. Many do not. In my experience as a sales manager my commissions and overrides always mysteriously decreased as my department's performance improved. The message I got was that I was too expensive for them to afford me. I don't work that way and it was one reason I dumped management and went back to outside sales.

 

[Puck it]

It is like the arbitrary $250K level related to taxes - total BS!

Yes totally agree. I have an argument for that remind to tell the scenario at Zoomer Bar sometime.

 

[deadheadskier]

Happy being just an outside sales rep myself. No desire to go back to management.

 

[steamboat1]

No overtime at my job. Bell rings at 9:30am & again at 4:00pm....:razz:

 

[yeggous]

No overtime at my job. Bell rings at 9:30am & again at 4:00pm....:razz:

Tell me about it. I am expected at work in time for a 10am meeting every day! Sometimes I'll even have to stay until 5pm.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[steamboat1]

 

[Riverskier]

Complete bs. Not suggesting employers should actually be required to do this calculation, but as long as salaried employees are being paid at least what minimum wage would be including ot then there is not a problem. Not happy with hours or compensation then find a new job or career even. Not like this is going to automatically give people raises anyway. Salaries can be adjusted, benefits slashed, salaried workers could be switched to hourly at a lower rate, plenty of ways to "restructure". Who is to say most companies could even afford the potential raises associated with this even if they wanted to? And why would companies even offer sub 50000 salaried positions when it could only benefit the employee? Seems like there would be more hourly jobs at a lower hourly rate.

 

[yeggous]

Complete bs. Not suggesting employers should actually be required to do this calculation, but as long as salaried employees are being paid at least what minimum wage would be including ot then there is not a problem. Not happy with hours or compensation then find a new job or career even. Not like this is going to automatically give people raises anyway. Salaries can be adjusted, benefits slashed, salaried workers could be switched to hourly at a lower rate, plenty of ways to "restructure". Who is to say most companies could even afford the potential raises associated with this even if they wanted to? And why would companies even offer sub 50000 salaried positions when it could only benefit the employee? Seems like there would be more hourly jobs at a lower hourly rate.

This is not a new rule. It is merely updating the salary scales back to the original level based on inflation. I'm sure we can all agree that inflation adjustments are not a bad or political thing.

We'll see a whole range of responses. Higher salaries are possible. Conversion to hourly employees is possible. Making staff work more reasonable hours for the same pay is possible. It is highly unlikely that you'll see a degradation of benefits. These employees are already working ample hours to receive benefits.

Currently the job market is not weak. Unemployment rates have been slowly but steadily dropping for the past six years. Nationally unemployment is 5.7%. It's even better in central and northern New England. Massachusetts and Maine are 4.7%. New Hampshire is 3.8%. Boston is 3.7%. Vermont is 3.6%. Those are healthy numbers!

At my office we've been having problems recruiting staff, at least at the salaries we have been used to paying. As a result people are getting pay raises again. After getting years of 2-3% inflationary increases, I've received just over a 17% raise this year.

 

[Puck it]

Currently the job market is not weak. Unemployment rates have been slowly but steadily dropping for the past six years. Nationally unemployment is 5.7%. It's even better in central and northern New England. Massachusetts and Maine are 4.7%. New Hampshire is 3.8%. Boston is 3.7%. Vermont is 3.6%. Those are healthy numbers!

These numbers are bogus. They don't count the number of people that have stopped looking or the increase in people on SSI for hang nails.