The person I was responding to was expressing gratitude at having the opportunity to earn 150% ones normal wage per hour. My point is that it’s not enough to offset the opportunity cost. If anything, employers should be discourage from asking for overtime pay at all, and make it 10x regular pay or something instead of 1.5x so that people can enjoy a better work life balance.
I understand what you’re saying, that 50% is better than nothing. Which obviously, I agree with. My contention is that even 50% is not enough to make up for what the worker gives up. Obviously the lack of opportunities may force the employee to accept the arrangement, but I’m speaking about a work life balance overall.
And there are many positions where the cost of hiring/training/retaining employees is higher than 50%, so it’s more advantageous for employers to just give overtime, which employers obviously utilize. But because an employer can force the employee to work overtime, it’s not clearly a beneficial arrangement to both.
Meh, we're just talking past each other, probably were from the start. I'm saying, "time-and-a-half beats working on games at EA for 80 hours/week for base, your factory-working friend has it better than a lot of tech workers" and you're saying "overtime sucks". Both statements are true, we're just negotiating the price...er, wait, wrong metaphor.
