A new expense looms for college athletic departments | The Boneyard

A new expense looms for college athletic departments

Status
Not open for further replies.

UCPusky

"Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
176
Reaction Score
435
A new expense looms for college athletic departments

This will certainly add to the ever-growing divide between the big players and all others.

"For a program like Oregon’s, which has an annual operating budget of more than $100 million, that’s significant but not insurmountable.

For Arkansas State, it’s a much more serious issue.

Athletics director Terry Mohajir, citing information he had received from his university’s human-resources office, said last week 34 of his department’s 72 employees currently have salaries that could shift them from exempt status to non-exempt. Based on those employees’ current pay, he estimated it will cost his department roughly $500,000 in salary increases to keep them exempt – and the salary increases will trigger another $200,000 in benefits costs."
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
496
Reaction Score
1,007
The irony here is the vast majority of college administrators and employees support big government Socialism, and now they will feel the pain of that support.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
1,776
Reaction Score
1,377
Whatever that means. Take your views to the Cesspool board.

Question of the day: Is asking someone to take a comment to the Cesspool the same as crying for a "safe space"?

Discuss among yourselves. But please only in the Cesspool.
 

Exit 4

This space for rent
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
10,397
Reaction Score
38,197
The irony here is the vast majority of college administrators and employees support big government Socialism, and now they will feel the pain of that support.

This will result in a broad array of outcomes. Some jobs will be eliminated, some will see pay increases, others will be asked to more carefully document their hrs to ensure their is no overtime. Things have to balance, so when labor becomes prohibitively expensive, the job is eliminated via outsourcing, automation or termination of the service (ie the service itself is retracted - no longer made available). There is no free lunch, some laborers will win, which means others will have to lose. Costs have to offset.
 

WestHartHusk

$3M a Year With March Off
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,559
Reaction Score
13,680
Question of the day: Is asking someone to take a comment to the Cesspool the same as crying for a "safe space"?

Discuss among yourselves. But please only in the Cesspool.

How about a somewhat informed space, as opposed to you and @uconntailgater just throwing about the buzzwords you have been instructed are the root of all evil - "big Government socialism" and "safe space"?

I mean, are you really opposed to people who make between $23k and $43k per year being eligible for overtime, or put another way, not eligible to be worked unlimited hours without compensation? At $23k, that is $11/hr pre-tax at 40 hours a week, and every extra 5 hours per week drops that down another $1.20/hr. Even at the very top end of the new rule at $43k per year we are saying that someone making $20.60/hr pre-tax. I am curious at what point you think it is people should actually be compensated for their time?
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
482
Reaction Score
1,130
They're making a bigger deal out of this than it actually is. Put your employees on time cards and prevent them from working overtime, problem solved. The law protects people who make $20,000 a year from being worked into the ground 60 hours per week.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,146
Reaction Score
45,590
How about a somewhat informed space, as opposed to you and @uconntailgater just throwing about the buzzwords you have been instructed are the root of all evil - "big Government socialism" and "safe space"?

I mean, are you really opposed to people who make between $23k and $43k per year being eligible for overtime, or put another way, not eligible to be worked unlimited hours without compensation? At $23k, that is $11/hr pre-tax at 40 hours a week, and every extra 5 hours per week drops that down another $1.20/hr. Even at the very top end of the new rule at $43k per year we are saying that someone making $20.60/hr pre-tax. I am curious at what point you think it is people should actually be compensated for their time?

You don't even need to go into detail really with his post.

He is asking people to blame themselves for making more money than they used to.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,146
Reaction Score
45,590
As with any new regulation, of course there will be problems. The biggest I see here is that there is no scale.

In other words, you avoid OT at the top of the scale by giving people raises above the threshold. Then you cut pay for people at the lower end of the threshold and you also tell them they are not allowed to work OT.
 

Exit 4

This space for rent
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
10,397
Reaction Score
38,197
As with any new regulation, of course there will be problems. The biggest I see here is that there is no scale.

In other words, you avoid OT at the top of the scale by giving people raises above the threshold. Then you cut pay for people at the lower end of the threshold and you also tell them they are not allowed to work OT.

And you automate other functions and/or eliminate other services (ie fire people). As with anything, when costs rise, accommodations must be made, particularly if revenues won't increase at a similar pace.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
1,776
Reaction Score
1,377
How about a somewhat informed space, as opposed to you and @uconntailgater just throwing about the buzzwords you have been instructed are the root of all evil - "big Government socialism" and "safe space"?

I mean, are you really opposed to people who make between $23k and $43k per year being eligible for overtime, or put another way, not eligible to be worked unlimited hours without compensation? At $23k, that is $11/hr pre-tax at 40 hours a week, and every extra 5 hours per week drops that down another $1.20/hr. Even at the very top end of the new rule at $43k per year we are saying that someone making $20.60/hr pre-tax. I am curious at what point you think it is people should actually be compensated for their time?

Wow!

You got all of that out of what I wrote? I have read my initial post 6 times and can not find any references to anything having to do with income levels, over time pay, hourly pay rates, etc.

Your ability to infer how I may feel about any of those things leaves me breathless and in awe.

But, since you asked-- Assuming their compensation is not based solely on commissions. In which case they should be free to work as many or as few hours as they wish. No one who is paid less than 100K, has the privilege of setting their own work schedule and is responsible for periodic performance reviews of subordinates, should be exempt from filling out a time sheet and getting over time pay. If they do not meet those criteria they are not a manager.
 
Last edited:

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,505
Reaction Score
19,477
I'm not sure this affects Athletic Departments as much as the article suggests.

Athletics director Terry Mohajir, citing information he had received from his university’s human-resources office, said last week 34 of his department’s 72 employees currently have salaries that could shift them from exempt status to non-exempt. Based on those employees’ current pay, he estimated it will cost his department roughly $500,000 in salary increases to keep them exempt – and the salary increases will trigger another $200,000 in benefits costs.

Sure it would cost a $1/2 million to increase the salaries of 34 employees, but how many of those employees have jobs requiring more than 40 hours/week in the first place? If those employees only work 30 hrs/week (for example), the new exemption rules don't apply anyway.

Secondly, if you compare the two articles, UConn's Budget Chief estimates raising the pay for 2,302 employees to $47,476 would cost UConn $1.5 million a year. Yet Arkansas State is arguing that raising the pay of 34 Athletic Department jobs (roughly 3/200th of UConn's number) would be as much as 1/3-1/2 the expense? I don't buy it.
 

HuskyV

Connecticut UConn Husky
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
523
Reaction Score
1,056
An army of unpaid interns to the rescue.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
86,938
Reaction Score
323,093
For those who like details...

>>This white paper provides guidance to members in determining whether individuals employed by their institution as coaches or trainers may be exempt under the FLSA following the implementation of the Final Rule. In addition, for those coaches and/or trainers who are not determined to qualify for the exemption, this white paper provides guidance on best practices for ensuring compliance with the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements.<<

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/f...t-Status-of-Coaches-and-Trainers_20160520.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
750
Guests online
4,059
Total visitors
4,809

Forum statistics

Threads
155,786
Messages
4,031,563
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom