New Rules for Overtime Pay Cancel The title field is required!

1. Bedford Mike P

   
   5/28/2016 7:05 PM

   Any thoughts on this?
   http://cqrcengage.com/gcsaa/app/document/13880655
   I was actually trying to become salaried exempt to take some weight off my Super (you know, work more hours for the same amount of money, without killing our labor budget).
   IMHO, this new rule is worthy of nothing but a long tirade of "colorful nautical language", and a sign of just how out of touch DOL is with the real world. This, on top of the new Affordable Care Act spaghetti bowl....
   Looks like it's time to wake up Washington.

   
   
   
   
2. Keith Lamb

   

   3 posts
   
   5/29/2016 10:05 AM

   Sorry Mike, but I disagree. This industry has taken advantage of many who would be affected by this rule. Only in the US have I seen where the employee is expected to be committed to the company and not the other way around.

   
   
   
   
3. Bedford Mike P

   
   5/29/2016 4:05 PM

   True, Keith, many people have been taken advantage of. I'm all for rules that would end employer abuse regarding salaried and hourly workers.
   This, in my opinion, isn't it.
   How hard would it be to sharpen the language defining salaried exempt, and enforcing those new guidelines?
   When the federal government steps in and demands that certain positions in the private sector to be paid a qualifying sum, I consider that overreach.
   This is bad law, and punishes both the bad eggs and the good.

   
   
   
   
4. Andy Jorgensen

   

   1 posts
   
   5/30/2016 7:05 AM

   I'm all for the salary increase. The current minimum level is way to low. However, I don't agree with the jump that is going to occur. I'd rather see it phased in over time to reach that number.

   
   
   
   
5. Sandy Clark

   

   0 posts
   
   5/30/2016 12:05 PM

   Minimum wage, or or not, when did the government gain the power to tell private business what they should be paying and make up new rules for overtime without going through Congress? Does Obama have dictatorial power or with a democratic republic aren't we supposed to our bodies of government vote on these things? I don't think the Federal gov. should have any power over what a non government job pays. Increased minimum wage will just result in more automation which is good for us but bad for the people losing jobs and the new OT rules will cause small business owners already on the bubble to close their doors. How does government interference work for the worker when it will result in high job loss in the real world. Haven't any of these clowns study economics? The market place, left alone will find proper balance. Always has, Always will!

   
   
   
   
6. Bedford Mike P

   
   5/30/2016 2:05 PM

   Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Minimum wage, or or not, when did the government gain the power to tell private business what they should be paying and make up new rules for overtime without going through Congress?

   
   Thank you, Sandy! You said that much better than I did.
   IMHO:
   1) Government should have a very limited role in the private sector.
   2) Minimum wage is entry level, not meant to support a family. If you want to start a family, educate yourself (college, trade school or OTJT) to elevate yourself to a living wage.
   3) I'm 50+ years old. I'm committed not so much to my company as I am to my Superintendent, a really one of a kind person. Now the DOL tells me I can't reciprocate his investment and commitment to me by adding hours without going into overtime?!
   Grrrr.

   
   
   
   
7. Sean Hoolehan

   

   0 posts
   
   5/31/2016 11:05 AM

   Not buying the argument that this is going to kill small business. No employer is being required to pay any employee more than they already make unless their salary when converted to a hourly rate = less than the minimum wage. It may be a little embarrassing but that's sort of the point. I have seen overtime laws abused in this industry for many years, many a good Superintendent or Asst Supt has been burnt-out with the hope that a better job with less hours is attainable. Superintendents have been supplementing underfunded budgets with their time and their assistants time. It's a trap that many of us fall into. Work 50-60 hours a week, burn-out, reduce hours to 40-45 hrs a week, something goes wrong (this happens no matter how much you work) and the first thing the members say is "he doesn't work as hard as he used to". Overtime is not a productive way to operate. Time and a half pay is not a efficient use of resources.
   
   The sky is not falling!
   
   https://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/final2 ... idance.pdf

   
   
   
   
8. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   5/31/2016 11:05 AM

   Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Minimum wage, or or not, when did the government gain the power to tell private business what they should be paying and make up new rules for overtime without going through Congress? Does Obama have dictatorial power or with a democratic republic aren't we supposed to our bodies of government vote on these things? This was a rule long before President Obama came into power, he just had the Department of Labor increase the amount. The old amount was an embarrassment. I remember my dad working on salary and when he figured out the hourly rate he was making less per hour than I or my mom. we didn't complain because we all worked at the same golf course and spent most of our family time together there. The new amount maybe a little high for some areas of the country, but I'm good with it. As far as who is responsible on asking for the increase, I don't know if it falls to Congress or not, but those do nothings wouldn't raise the amount I don't think the Federal gov. should have any power over what a non government job pays. In theory I agree with you, but when large corporations take advantage of the little people, somebody needs to step up for the workers, If businesses would do right by everyone, we wouldn't need OSHA, the EPA, Department of Labor, FAA, and many others. Increased minimum wage will just result in more automation Nobody really complained about automation in the manufacturing sector, or in the office setting, I remember seeing pictures of big typing pools, now because of computers and programs, 1 person can do the work of 10 (or more). Machines can practically build the cars themselves, no one paints on the assembly line anymore do they? So it happens in the fast food industry too? I only worry because my son just got his first summer job at McDonalds, but one has to wonder, in the long run not having that personal interaction, could it hurt their businesses? which is good for us but bad for the people losing jobs and the new OT rules will cause small business owners already on the bubble to close their doors. How does government interference work for the worker when it will result in high job loss in the real world. Haven't any of these clowns study economics? The market place, left alone will find proper balance. Always has, Always will!

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
9. Bedford Mike P

   
   5/31/2016 5:05 PM

   Sean Hoolehan, CGCS said: Not buying the argument that this is going to kill small business. No employer is being required to pay any employee more than they already make unless their salary when converted to a hourly rate = less than the minimum wage.

   
   No, it won't kill it, at least if you don't factor in the "Affordable Health Care" act and the headaches it's now presenting.
   I side with many in our industry, as expressed in the public comments link in this article
   http://cqrcengage.com/gcsaa/app/document/13880655
   As for me, I expect to be burnt to a crisp by the end of our busy season. As I was last year. As I have been every year I've been involved in the industry. When things slow down during our shoulder season, I'll take a day to sit in a corner of the shop giggling hysterically and talk to a sock puppet, then dust myself off and get ready for the next round.
   How punitive pay hikes or labor reductions will ease the burden placed on Superintendents and their key support staff is something I don't see.
   I was told a long time ago, "If you want a 9 to 5 job, work at a union saw mill. Golf is a labor of love, at it takes what time it wants".
   I still believe that.

   
   
   
   
10. Curtis Nickerson

    

    0 posts
    
    6/1/2016 5:06 AM

    This mandate will not impact my operation, but how can an industry take advantage of someone? No one is holding a gun to any of our heads forcing us to stay in the turf business? Don't like what you are getting paid? Acquire new skills and find a better paying job. I never understood how anyone can say "they are being taken advantage of" the truth of the matter is if you feel that way you are "allowing someone to take advantage of you by staying"

    
    
    
    
11. Sean Hoolehan

    

    0 posts
    
    6/1/2016 10:06 AM

    Curtis Nickerson said: This mandate will not impact my operation, but how can an industry take advantage of someone? No one is holding a gun to any of our heads forcing us to stay in the turf business? Don't like what you are getting paid? Acquire new skills and find a better paying job. I never understood how anyone can say "they are being taken advantage of" the truth of the matter is if you feel that way you are "allowing someone to take advantage of you by staying"

    
    
    History is is full of examples of industry saying the exact same thing. To that point, that's exactly whats happening in our industry. I hear how hard it is to find qualified assistants, and turf schools don't have students. Tough business to pencil out the return on a $100,000 + college degree. The skills to be a successful superintendent equate to lots of more lucrative professions, and some that don't require you to abandon your family every summer. Of Course there are lots of us who manage to work a reasonable schedule, (as well as our assistants) and still get the job done and that's why this new law wont impact us.

    
    
    
    
12. Sean Hoolehan

    

    0 posts
    
    6/1/2016 10:06 AM

    Mike P Bedford said:

    Sean Hoolehan, CGCS said: Not buying the argument that this is going to kill small business. No employer is being required to pay any employee more than they already make unless their salary when converted to a hourly rate = less than the minimum wage.

    
    No, it won't kill it, at least if you don't factor in the "Affordable Health Care" act and the headaches it's now presenting.
    I side with many in our industry, as expressed in the public comments link in this article
    http://cqrcengage.com/gcsaa/app/document/13880655
    As for me, I expect to be burnt to a crisp by the end of our busy season. As I was last year. As I have been every year I've been involved in the industry. When things slow down during our shoulder season, I'll take a day to sit in a corner of the shop giggling hysterically and talk to a sock puppet, then dust myself off and get ready for the next round.
    How punitive pay hikes or labor reductions will ease the burden placed on Superintendents and their key support staff is something I don't see.
    I was told a long time ago, "If you want a 9 to 5 job, work at a union saw mill. Golf is a labor of love, at it takes what time it wants".
    I still believe that.

    
    
    Good for you Mike!
    
    In my 40 years in this business that "labor of love" only goes so far, and eventually that sock puppet starts to talk back. But don' t worry because the industry will find someone else to fill your spot.
    
    What you describe above is exactly how we did it 35 years ago. It was not very efficient management then either.

    
    
    
    
13. Bedford Mike P

    
    6/1/2016 1:06 PM

    Sean Hoolehan, CGCS said: In my 40 years in this business that "labor of love" only goes so far, and eventually that sock puppet starts to talk back. But don' t worry because the industry will find someone else to fill your spot.

    
    I have no problem agreeing to disagree, Sean... but who said my sock puppet didn't already talk back?

    
    
    
    
14. Curtis Nickerson

    

    0 posts
    
    6/1/2016 1:06 PM

    Good for you Mike!
    
    In my 40 years in this business that "labor of love" only goes so far, and eventually that sock puppet starts to talk back. But don' t worry because the industry will find someone else to fill your spot.
    
    What you describe above is exactly how we did it 35 years ago. It was not very efficient management then either.
    Sean,
    With all due respect, you seem very bitter with the golf industry? My take on it is this, every industry searches for the "next best thing" weather that be , younger, [u">cheaper[/u">, faster, more experience, what have you. I expect nothing from this industry, I work a week they pay me for the week I worked. Such as life, I am blessed to have worked for a great Superintendent when I was first starting out, no he didn't host any PGA event, he didn't even work for any "highend" tracks, he was just a simple man that said "life is what you make of it, go make a great life and enjoy a good quality of life, because no matter how many hours you work today there will still be more work to be done tomorrow".
    
    Government mandates aren't going to fix it, people will have off season hours cut, asked to take comp time, or some other type of "agreement" . I agree the industry needs to change, I cringe when I see Asst.& Supts advertised with low pay, but no one is forced to take those jobs or stay in the industry for low pay, again, like my original post said...don't like the hours and pay? Find another career.
    
    Somethings will change, but this wont be a windfall for anyone and may even push more people out of work.
    
    ...and remember, "life is what you make of it"

    
    
    
    
15. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    6/1/2016 2:06 PM

    Mike,
    
    Thanks for that link, interesting to see what groups that supported and criticized the law. The Heritage Foundation? The right wing think tank that originally proposed the basic structure of the ACA, then when it was put into place thought it was a bad idea, that made me laugh.
    
    Also interesting that a lot of language on clarification or to try to clarify doesn't seem to be that clear to me, but I probably have the reading skills of a 10th grader maybe.
    
    I do like that it will be revisited every 3 years and it is not guaranteed to go up every year. I wonder if those same rules had been put in place when the original law was passed, what the rate would be now?
    
    I don't think Sean is bitter, well maybe he is after that sweep of his White Sox by the Royals as the White Sox bullpen imploded. But I do think Sean with his experience and chance as serving as GCSAA president and the networking that he had done in that position has some good insight into how this industry has worked and the effect it had on superintendents and their families (and of course that was before the change of law). Although I shouldn't be speaking for Sean, he could probably do a much better job of why he supports the change.
    
    I know myself that I was very grateful despite the pay to have been in a municipal setting when my son hit middle school and especially high school, where it allowed me to take advantage of time available to be a big part of what he did during that time, while I don't know in a similar situation if I could have done it being at a different type of facility. Family time can't be replaced.
    
    Curtis, you do make a point, don't like the pay or the hours go find another career, well that is the problem, good people are finding other careers and those of us at lower end facilities especially are struggling to fill management positions, is this law the best answer? I don't know, but maybe those that what to have a family life and have stayed away from this industry might just come back to it, knowing they will either be compensated for hours worked, or with a fair wage, or with time off, because the facility does not want to pay overtime. The question is, how do they replace those hours to get the things done? My guess is they hire extra help, or maybe they lower some of their expectations (yea, like that will happen)?
    
    I'm willing to see it play out.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
16. Sean Hoolehan

    

    0 posts
    
    6/1/2016 2:06 PM

    Curtis Nickerson said:
    ...and remember, "life is what you make of it"

    
    
    Exactly!
    
    Actually i would say bitter would be the opposite of my reflection of the golf industry, its afforded me quite a comfortable life. We disagree about this law, but by having a public debate we can also share and influence others and perhaps change minds. I really think this new law will be good for a great number of GCSAA members, maybe mostly assistants but they will eventually be the superintendents and GCSAA members.
    
    "Government mandates aren't going to fix it, people will have off season hours cut, asked to take comp time, or some other type of "agreement" ."
    
    The only way this law will force a employer to pay a employee more is if they were paying them below minimum wage when calculated per hour vs per week. We have a basic disagreement about government mandates. I think fair wages and safe work environments are a place government belongs being involved. You are right no one has to work in the golf industry or any industry at all. Still it seems like we should want to make it better for the people coming behind us.
    
    We all have our stories but its not always about us.
    
    Sean

    
    
    
    
17. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    6/1/2016 2:06 PM

    Sean Hoolehan, CGCS said:

    Curtis Nickerson said:
    ...and remember, "life is what you make of it"

    
    
    Exactly!
    
    Actually i would say bitter would be the opposite of my reflection of the golf industry, its afforded me quite a comfortable life. We disagree about this law, but by having a public debate we can also share and influence others and perhaps change minds. I really think this new law will be good for a great number of GCSAA members, maybe mostly assistants but they will eventually be the superintendents and GCSAA members.
    
    "Government mandates aren't going to fix it, people will have off season hours cut, asked to take comp time, or some other type of "agreement" ."
    
    The only way this law will force a employer to pay a employee more is if they were paying them below minimum wage when calculated per hour vs per week. We have a basic disagreement about government mandates. I think fair wages and safe work environments are a place government belongs being involved. You are right no one has to work in the golf industry or any industry at all. Still it seems like we should want to make it better for the people coming behind us.
    
    We all have our stories but its not always about us.
    
    Sean

    
    
    See I knew Sean could do it. Well said.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
18. Sean Hoolehan

    

    0 posts
    
    6/1/2016 2:06 PM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS"]
    
    I don't think Sean is bitter, well maybe he is after that sweep of his White Sox by the Royals as the White Sox bullpen imploded. You really know how to hurt a guy!

    
    
    
    
19. Curtis Nickerson

    

    0 posts
    
    6/1/2016 3:06 PM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Mike,
    
    Thanks for that link, interesting to see what groups that supported and criticized the law. The Heritage Foundation? The right wing think tank that originally proposed the basic structure of the ACA, then when it was put into place thought it was a bad idea, that made me laugh.
    
    Also interesting that a lot of language on clarification or to try to clarify doesn't seem to be that clear to me, but I probably have the reading skills of a 10th grader maybe.
    
    I do like that it will be revisited every 3 years and it is not guaranteed to go up every year. I wonder if those same rules had been put in place when the original law was passed, what the rate would be now?
    
    I don't think Sean is bitter, well maybe he is after that sweep of his White Sox by the Royals as the White Sox bullpen imploded. But I do think Sean with his experience and chance as serving as GCSAA president and the networking that he had done in that position has some good insight into how this industry has worked and the effect it had on superintendents and their families (and of course that was before the change of law). Although I shouldn't be speaking for Sean, he could probably do a much better job of why he supports the change.
    
    I know myself that I was very grateful despite the pay to have been in a municipal setting when my son hit middle school and especially high school, where it allowed me to take advantage of time available to be a big part of what he did during that time, while I don't know in a similar situation if I could have done it being at a different type of facility. Family time can't be replaced.
    
    Curtis, you do make a point, don't like the pay or the hours go find another career, well that is the problem, good people are finding other careers and those of us at lower end facilities especially are struggling to fill management positions, is this law the best answer? I don't know, but maybe those that what to have a family life and have stayed away from this industry might just come back to it, knowing they will either be compensated for hours worked, or with a fair wage, or with time off, because the facility does not want to pay overtime. The question is, how do they replace those hours to get the things done? My guess is they hire extra help, or maybe they lower some of their expectations (yea, like that will happen)?
    
    I'm willing to see it play out.
    
    Mel

    
    
    So Mel,
    You think forcing lower end facilities to pay more is going to help the industry, an industry that has seen virtually zero growth for how long?
    
    Most lower end facilities that I have been around are that way because of lower end revenue, not because the owners are rolling in the dough! Forcing owners to pay more is only going to exacerbate a stagnant no growth sport like golf, or force them to make cuts, which helps who?
    
    When did it become anyone other than our own responsibility to take care of ourselves? I worked at bottom of the barrel very low end facilities and was paid very little, I also had several opportunities to leave to make more money...But I stayed, because I loved working on a golf course.
    
    Sean, I agree on the safety aspect of the governments role, but how do they determine a pay scale? when is enough, enough, when is it too much or just right? Only we can determine that for ourselves IMO.

    
    
    
    
20. Sean Hoolehan

    

    0 posts
    
    6/2/2016 8:06 AM

    Sean, I agree on the safety aspect of the governments role, but how do they determine a pay scale? when is enough, enough, when is it too much or just right? Only we can determine that for ourselves IMO.
    Curtis Nickerson
    
    You can make the same argument that a person has a right to work in a unsafe environment as long as he knows its unsafe. How safe does it need to be? The argument about the governments regulation of the work place has been settled for almost 100 years. I respect your opinion but i don't agree.
    
    Interesting rant in other forum. I hear this all the time, and recently in a conversation with a employment specialist who works with a lot of Superintendents i was told that this is a common situation. viewtopic.php?f=26&t=5687&start=0

    
    
    
    
21. Curtis Nickerson

    

    0 posts
    
    6/2/2016 8:06 AM

    Sean Hoolehan, CGCS said: Sean, I agree on the safety aspect of the governments role, but how do they determine a pay scale? when is enough, enough, when is it too much or just right? Only we can determine that for ourselves IMO.
    Curtis Nickerson
    
    You can make the same argument that a person has a right to work in a unsafe environment as long as he knows its unsafe. How safe does it need to be? The argument about the governments regulation of the work place has been settled for almost 100 years. I respect your opinion but i don't agree.
    
    Interesting rant in other forum. I hear this all the time, and recently in a conversation with a employment specialist who works with a lot of Superintendents i was told that this is a common situation. viewtopic.php?f=26&t=5687&start=0

    
    
    
    From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs