better asked... if YOU don't care, then why did you feel it necessary to 'incorrectly' correct two people about something nobody cares about?

(05-19-2016 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:40 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:37 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Most of my coworkers are working 50-60+ hour weeks. If you don't, you're lambasted as "not being a team player." They're copywriters with no management responsibilities. Salaried in the 30's or low 40's.

The president loves trying to play things off like we're a startup with limited funds and that we require people to be willing to work long hours. Loves using that line to make people feel better about their long days. We're 9 years old and make over $100,000/mo in net income. We're not strapped for cash and we're not a startup anymore. Used to be a great place to work, but he's become so focused on cutting costs and running lean that employees are fleeing and it is a huge strain on the ones that are still here--requiring them to work more hours without more pay.

Salaried positions today are largely a way for employers to keep employment costs low and nothing more. Undoubtedly some positions will be hurt by this rule (likely retail and food service managers that are easily replaceable), but some will benefit as well. It'll be interesting to see whether it turns out to be a net positive or negative.

A company that has more than a handful of employees making $30-$40K that is only generating $100K per month isnt sitting on a cash mountain. Things are tight.

Huh? What are you talking about and how would you know about his company anyway?

He said their net income is $100,000 a month. That's after expenses...you know...like salaries and wages.

He said net, but I doubt he meant net. The only people who know the actual net income of a privately held company is the owner and the person who does their books and taxes, especially on a month by month basis. A monthly net is almost irrelevant, as the expenses of a company can bounce around separately from the income, depending on the accounting basis used and when vendors bill and when the company invoices. While it is very possible to have a steady gross monthly income, it is virtually impossible to have a steady net monthly income.

(05-20-2016 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude...this is why you drive me nuts. Good Lord!

NO ONE CARES!!!!

Therein lies the problem. People ought to care, and better start caring soon, unless we want to end up somewhere between Argentina and Zimbabwe.

(05-20-2016 12:09 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:40 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:37 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Most of my coworkers are working 50-60+ hour weeks. If you don't, you're lambasted as "not being a team player." They're copywriters with no management responsibilities. Salaried in the 30's or low 40's.

The president loves trying to play things off like we're a startup with limited funds and that we require people to be willing to work long hours. Loves using that line to make people feel better about their long days. We're 9 years old and make over $100,000/mo in net income. We're not strapped for cash and we're not a startup anymore. Used to be a great place to work, but he's become so focused on cutting costs and running lean that employees are fleeing and it is a huge strain on the ones that are still here--requiring them to work more hours without more pay.

Salaried positions today are largely a way for employers to keep employment costs low and nothing more. Undoubtedly some positions will be hurt by this rule (likely retail and food service managers that are easily replaceable), but some will benefit as well. It'll be interesting to see whether it turns out to be a net positive or negative.

A company that has more than a handful of employees making $30-$40K that is only generating $100K per month isnt sitting on a cash mountain. Things are tight.

Huh? What are you talking about and how would you know about his company anyway?

He said their net income is $100,000 a month. That's after expenses...you know...like salaries and wages.

He said net, but I doubt he meant net. The only people who know the actual net income of a privately held company is the owner and the person who does their books and taxes, especially on a month by month basis. A monthly net is almost irrelevant, as the expenses of a company can bounce around separately from the income, depending on the accounting basis used and when vendors bill and when the company invoices. While it is very possible to have a steady gross monthly income, it is virtually impossible to have a steady net monthly income.

I definitely met net.

We're open with our financials for all employees. We get the full financial report every month. We do about $525k/mo in revenue, with about $100k of that being pass through revenue. Our expenses fluctuate a bit, but we're a digitally based company, so we have very little overhead. We have a couple months a year that we get hit with $8-12k in software fees that come in large chunks, but the other 10 or so months, our expenses are consistent. Our company is largely built on recurring monthly fees, so we're not as dependent on sales orders that can cause revenue and income to fluctuate greatly from month to month.

I'm not a peon at this company and I'm not impacted by the OT rule anyway. I'm a manager and I make well over the threshold for the OT law.

I'm comfortable and well taken care of. It's just frustrating seeing my coworkers go from motivated and happy to miserable and leaving all in the name of making it game (his words) to run as lean as possible. Running efficiently is smart, but replacing people is difficult and we take forever to hire new people because we are very particular about who we hire (probably a little too picky for the wages we pay). Constantly replacing employees has a cost, both financially and in the form of risk. Our team of 8 writers has lost 5 people this year and only replaced 1. The remaining writers have had their work load significantly increased (some by more than double), yet they get paid the same. They can leave of course, and unfortunately many of them have realized they can go elsewhere and make more money for less work. I like it here, I just hate seeing all the things that used to make it a great place to work sucked out.

We can afford to pay overtime, or to pay our employees the minimum threshold without tanking the company and now that most employees here know the others left for higher wages and a better work/life balance, we're going to have to or lose more people, or constantly be a rotating door.

We're debt free, and have been for nearly our entire existence. It's not a company that required much startup fees. If you have a computer, you can do what we do. There were some hard months in the beginning where the owner didn't get to pay himself a salary, but those days were many, many years ago.


Doesn't really matter to me much anymore though. I started my own company 2 months ago and it's going very well. I'm just tying up loose ends here so I can turn in my notice. I'm just sticking it out until we hire a few new people so I don't completely screw over the people that work in my department.

(05-20-2016 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude...this is why you drive me nuts. Good Lord!

NO ONE CARES!!!!

Therein lies the problem. People ought to care, and better start caring soon, unless we want to end up somewhere between Argentina and Zimbabwe.

Geez...I'm not talking about the damn OT law...I was talking about HB's over-analysis of one harmless point I made about UofM's post regarding Niner's post!

(05-20-2016 12:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Doesn't really matter to me much anymore though. I started my own company 2 months ago and it's going very well. I'm just tying up loose ends here so I can turn in my notice. I'm just sticking it out until we hire a few new people so I don't completely screw over the people that work in my department.

I'm glad to hear that as my ;sounds like an opportunity' was genuine. If the guy IS being a jerk, then it makes the probability that you could hire the better people away from him (assuming you're in competition) and be a 'better' boss.

My comment was only meant to imply that whether or not you knew the intimate details.... either the guy was telling the truth, or lying when he said things are tight. If he's lying, it can't be good for morale and opening up competition would be good... and that is what you seem to be doing. Good for you. If he's telling the truth then it is what it is. Either way, you know because you work there and are privy to far more information than you've provided. (not that you should)

(05-20-2016 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  ..I was talking about HB's over-analysis of one harmless point I made about UofM's post regarding Niner's post!

Who's on first?

(05-20-2016 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude...this is why you drive me nuts. Good Lord!

NO ONE CARES!!!!

Therein lies the problem. People ought to care, and better start caring soon, unless we want to end up somewhere between Argentina and Zimbabwe.

Geez...I'm not talking about the damn OT law...I was talking about HB's over-analysis of one harmless point I made about UofM's post regarding Niner's post!

90% of my response had nothing to do with your 'harmless' point.

Your point was wrong. That's all that you NEEDED to know.


If you choose to want to know why it was wrong, then my post explained it. If you don't want to know why, then don't read it.

If you don't care, then don't read or reply... but don't blame me for correcting your misunderstanding.

Unlike SOME posters on here, I rarely simply tell people they're wrong or stupid.... I usually say why I think so.

(05-20-2016 12:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:09 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:40 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:37 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Most of my coworkers are working 50-60+ hour weeks. If you don't, you're lambasted as "not being a team player." They're copywriters with no management responsibilities. Salaried in the 30's or low 40's.

The president loves trying to play things off like we're a startup with limited funds and that we require people to be willing to work long hours. Loves using that line to make people feel better about their long days. We're 9 years old and make over $100,000/mo in net income. We're not strapped for cash and we're not a startup anymore. Used to be a great place to work, but he's become so focused on cutting costs and running lean that employees are fleeing and it is a huge strain on the ones that are still here--requiring them to work more hours without more pay.

Salaried positions today are largely a way for employers to keep employment costs low and nothing more. Undoubtedly some positions will be hurt by this rule (likely retail and food service managers that are easily replaceable), but some will benefit as well. It'll be interesting to see whether it turns out to be a net positive or negative.

A company that has more than a handful of employees making $30-$40K that is only generating $100K per month isnt sitting on a cash mountain. Things are tight.

Huh? What are you talking about and how would you know about his company anyway?

He said their net income is $100,000 a month. That's after expenses...you know...like salaries and wages.

He said net, but I doubt he meant net. The only people who know the actual net income of a privately held company is the owner and the person who does their books and taxes, especially on a month by month basis. A monthly net is almost irrelevant, as the expenses of a company can bounce around separately from the income, depending on the accounting basis used and when vendors bill and when the company invoices. While it is very possible to have a steady gross monthly income, it is virtually impossible to have a steady net monthly income.

I definitely met net.

We're open with our financials for all employees. We get the full financial report every month. We do about $525k/mo in revenue, with about $100k of that being pass through revenue. Our expenses fluctuate a bit, but we're a digitally based company, so we have very little overhead. We have a couple months a year that we get hit with $8-12k in software fees that come in large chunks, but the other 10 or so months, our expenses are consistent. Our company is largely built on recurring monthly fees, so we're not as dependent on sales orders that can cause revenue and income to fluctuate greatly from month to month.

I'm not a peon at this company and I'm not impacted by the OT rule anyway. I'm a manager and I make well over the threshold for the OT law.

I'm comfortable and well taken care of. It's just frustrating seeing my coworkers go from motivated and happy to miserable and leaving all in the name of making it game (his words) to run as lean as possible. Running efficiently is smart, but replacing people is difficult and we take forever to hire new people because we are very particular about who we hire (probably a little too picky for the wages we pay). Constantly replacing employees has a cost, both financially and in the form of risk. Our team of 8 writers has lost 5 people this year and only replaced 1. The remaining writers have had their work load significantly increased (some by more than double), yet they get paid the same. They can leave of course, and unfortunately many of them have realized they can go elsewhere and make more money for less work. I like it here, I just hate seeing all the things that used to make it a great place to work sucked out.

We can afford to pay overtime, or to pay our employees the minimum threshold without tanking the company and now that most employees here know the others left for higher wages and a better work/life balance, we're going to have to or lose more people, or constantly be a rotating door.

We're debt free, and have been for nearly our entire existence. It's not a company that required much startup fees. If you have a computer, you can do what we do. There were some hard months in the beginning where the owner didn't get to pay himself a salary, but those days were many, many years ago.


Doesn't really matter to me much anymore though. I started my own company 2 months ago and it's going very well. I'm just tying up loose ends here so I can turn in my notice. I'm just sticking it out until we hire a few new people so I don't completely screw over the people that work in my department.

Thanks for updating the numbers. You didnt have to do that, and I certainly wasnt calling you out to do it.

We can afford to pay overtime, or to pay our employees the minimum threshold without tanking the company and now that most employees here know the others left for higher wages and a better work/life balance, we're going to have to or lose more people, or constantly be a rotating door.

This part is true. Just like the earlier sweatshop company I spoke about. You will be one of those companies; pay well and retain, or dont and constantly replace.

I will say this, 19% margin on a $6million company is not great. Its not bad, but if that does not include owners wage, its limiting in what you can do. This is especially true if the business is heavy on the labor side. (Which sounds like it, as you said anyone can do it with a computer.) The issue you will find when going to a standard overtime model is that employees will begin to bake that overtime into their pay, and the company will start realizing that overtime even when the amount of business does not call for it. Thats the opposite of lean. Its actually the start of death.

Labor costs are the most difficult part of your business to manage. You can make deals with vendor to chop 10% off the price of a part. You can change a process that cuts 10% off of the price to manufacture an item. You aint going to have a fun time telling someone you need to chop 10% off their salary, and the government mandates are going to allow you to in some cases either.

The biggest condition to whether a company can pay better and retain or pay less and deal with the turnover has to do with their competition and their price points. You can be the boss with the biggest heart in the world and pay your employees well, but if another company who doesnt is offering a price that causes customers to swap over to them, it wont matter. You will begin to bleed business. And its damned near impossible to go backwards on wages to compete.

Keep in mind, Im' not saying your boss isnt a complete ******* though. He could be a raging a-hole.

(05-19-2016 12:46 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Maybe it was just me but the overtime hours worked (after a few) just seemed to not be worth the extra work once the taxes were taking out of the overtime pay. Could be just a perception of diminishing returns; however, I do believe taxes are withheld at a higher rate with overtime pay. Of course I was a teenager back then and probably just had other things I'd would have rather been doing, etc......

It was your perception. It's not that overtime is taxed differently, it's that you made more that pay period and therefore paid higher taxes. Federal and State taxes are marginal tax rates, the rate you pay in the next dollar of income. Even if you're in the top brackets (35% or 39.4% Federal Income Tax), paying upwards of 10% at the state and local level, FICA, Medicare, and Medicare surtax, that's still true.

(05-20-2016 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude...this is why you drive me nuts. Good Lord!

NO ONE CARES!!!!

Therein lies the problem. People ought to care, and better start caring soon, unless we want to end up somewhere between Argentina and Zimbabwe.

Some of thge resident libs dont know any better. Surely their govt overlords will swoop in and save the day.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk