http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../84430000/

Western Carolina:
"While I can tell you with great certainty that I would not be alone in my ultimate course of action,” he wrote, “I do not look forward to the day when I must look 10%-20% of my employees in the eye to tell them I am cutting their position due to federally mandated changes in the FLSA standards.”

Arkansas State:
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.

The estimated $700,000 increase is against a current annual operating budget of nearly $30 million, Mohajir said.

Well... Instead of growing jobs it's going to force employers to cut jobs... Surprised here

This was discussed on the Sun Belt board and arkstfan made the point that these figures are unrealistically high as all these employees won't just be brought up to the exempt minimum salary. More than likely they'll be given more time off or just paid the OT when they have to. He lays it out better than I am, here's his post and the discussion.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-780212-post-132...id13273150

As to the new regs there's winners and losers and wrongs being righted and rights being wronged as there is with any change like this. It's hard if not impossible to make regulations that will fit every situation but calling someone a manager so you can work them to the bone and not pay them **** was the concern here and was being abused in plenty of situations.

Or alternately, don't require that they work more than 8 hrs a day or 40 hours a week. No overtime, problem solved.

(05-18-2016 09:41 PM)FIU Panther Fan Wrote:  Or alternately, don't require that they work more than 8 hrs a day or 40 hours a week. No overtime, problem solved.

The problem I see is that we have some asst coaches not making that 47K. (sad but true) and just working with their team; let alone going to games, etc. puts them over 40 hours....easy. Those people will have to be compensated. You can't tell the (example) baseball/softball coaches his/her assistants can't be with the team for a (say) midweek game because the weekend series takes up too many hours or that they can't be at practice because just 4 games a week could entail using 20+ hours (that's if it's not an away weekend series) and they have office, prep time, recruiting time.

Cat Ostermann is at 45K and you know she works more than 40 hours a week with our softball team.

I'm sorry, but any college coach, in any sport, not making $50,000 a year is being abused. Maybe the head coaches should come up off their wallets a little bit to help fix this. I am all for getting all you can, but not at the expense of the people that make you successful. If a head coach is making $700,000 and he has assistants making $40,000 then he is a narcissist.

(05-18-2016 09:15 PM)Jack Bauer Wrote:  Well... Instead of growing jobs it's going to force employers to cut jobs... Surprised here

Maybe jobs that make people work overtime but don't pay a living wage shouldn't exist.

Employers have whined about every regulation that's ever been passed. The ADA was supposed to kill the economy. Before that, it was the Clean Air Act. Even earlier, child labor laws were the supposed end of American industry. None of thesepredictions came true.

Not sure how long this has been known but makes me wonder if USM knew this when they hired Hopson. The previous 2 football coaches were making over $700k but Hopson's contract is "only" 500k but is very incentive friendly

(05-18-2016 11:30 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 09:41 PM)FIU Panther Fan Wrote:  Or alternately, don't require that they work more than 8 hrs a day or 40 hours a week. No overtime, problem solved.

The problem I see is that we have some asst coaches not making that 47K. (sad but true) and just working with their team; let alone going to games, etc. puts them over 40 hours....easy. Those people will have to be compensated. You can't tell the (example) baseball/softball coaches his/her assistants can't be with the team for a (say) midweek game because the weekend series takes up too many hours or that they can't be at practice because just 4 games a week could entail using 20+ hours (that's if it's not an away weekend series) and they have office, prep time, recruiting time.

Cat Ostermann is at 45K and you know she works more than 40 hours a week with our softball team.

Maybe they can find a way to average that over the year as the coach's salary would be listed as annual but their sports are seasonal. I know many still work hard in the off-seasons but still don't put in the time they do during spring and fall practice and the actual season. Is there a stipulation on the that it must be a 40 hour week for measure and not x hours per year?

In other words if I work 7, 12s for 4 months and then barely get 20 hours per week the rest of the year, my salary would reflect the busy time and the not so busy time. This would average to a regular hourly wage commensurate with current laws, but I'd technically be due overtime for 4 months out of the year. There must be some kind of exemption for seasonal jobs.

I was the assistant SID at Rice from 1988 to 1996 (24 to 32 years old). During that time, my top salary was barely 30K, and I'd say during those eight years I averaged 70-80 hour work weeks (usually had to work 7 days a week from late August to June).

I loved the job but I was single and had no chance of having a family with those hours and salary. I had to quit to have a life.

Not sure if it was a USM thing or national mandate but at USM for summer camps for all sports coaches/staff at one point had to use vacation time if they were being compensated for working the camp. Granted this wouldn't be relative to in-season OT but something that was done so coaches/staff weren't double-dipping so to say.

Take this garbage to the spin room.

(05-19-2016 09:09 AM)FIU Panther Fan Wrote:  Take this garbage to the spin room.

Agree,

Either get this back on topic about how this will affect an athletics department or it gets shut down. The Spin Room is a lovely place to discuss your political views.

(05-18-2016 11:52 PM)banker Wrote:  I'm sorry, but any college coach, in any sport, not making $50,000 a year is being abused. Maybe the head coaches should come up off their wallets a little bit to help fix this. I am all for getting all you can, but not at the expense of the people that make you successful. If a head coach is making $700,000 and he has assistants making $40,000 then he is a narcissist.

I doubt there are many coaches making 700k with assistants making 40. More likely we're talking about sports where head coaches make 75-100 and assistants make 40. Or an Assistant SID or Assistant ticket manager or marketing assistant making 40. Only a few sports where heads make 500k+ and in those sports, their assistants make more than 40.

(05-19-2016 12:42 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Maybe jobs that make people work overtime but don't pay a living wage shouldn't exist.

Employers have whined about every regulation that's ever been passed. The ADA was supposed to kill the economy. Before that, it was the Clean Air Act. Even earlier, child labor laws were the supposed end of American industry. None of thesepredictions came true.

You mean entry level jobs or jobs shouldn't exist? What about altruism? Is 'salary' the only measure of a job? How is someone better off WITHOUT a job at all than with one that doesn't pay enough?

As for the whining, numerous studies have shown that lots of those measures have had a significant 'negative' impact on industry and the economy. I think your characterization of them as 'supposed to end American Industry' is choosing a bombastic comment PERHAPS made by someone at the time (or not) and attributing it to everyone who opposed it, or supported it but recognized that it would be a drag.

I've seen people in this thread talk about how it may lead to stretching of already thin budgets and potential loss of a few jobs, but I haven't seen anyone say that this measure, in and of itself, is going to bring about an end to college athletics.

That doesn't mean there won't be some unfortunate fallout.

I can tell you from personal experience that I have turned down a college coaching position (Head Women's Tennis) because I make more money as a high school teacher and head high school coach. No college head coach, of any sport, should be making less than a high school teacher/coach.

(05-20-2016 08:05 AM)stanman505 Wrote:  I can tell you from personal experience that I have turned down a college coaching position (Head Women's Tennis) because I make more money as a high school teacher and head high school coach. No college head coach, of any sport, should be making less than a high school teacher/coach.

Disagree.

Football produces tons of money. A lot of basketball programs do. Some baseball programs are at least not a financial drain.

How much did that women's tennis program produce?

(05-20-2016 08:05 AM)stanman505 Wrote:  I can tell you from personal experience that I have turned down a college coaching position (Head Women's Tennis) because I make more money as a high school teacher and head high school coach. No college head coach, of any sport, should be making less than a high school teacher/coach.

Disagree.

Football produces tons of money. A lot of basketball programs do. Some baseball programs are at least not a financial drain.

How much did that women's tennis program produce?

(05-20-2016 08:38 AM)GoBigGold Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 08:05 AM)stanman505 Wrote:  I can tell you from personal experience that I have turned down a college coaching position (Head Women's Tennis) because I make more money as a high school teacher and head high school coach. No college head coach, of any sport, should be making less than a high school teacher/coach.

Disagree.

Football produces tons of money. A lot of basketball programs do. Some baseball programs are at least not a financial drain.

How much did that women's tennis program produce?

If making money/breaking even is the standard then colleges should cancel all sports programs other than football, men's basketball (at most schools), women's basketball at a few schools and 20/30 baseball programs. If you want to get technical only a very few schools in CUSA have a football program that is self sustaining, and by that I mean able to fully fund itself without money from student fees.

(05-18-2016 11:52 PM)banker Wrote:  I'm sorry, but any college coach, in any sport, not making $50,000 a year is being abused. Maybe the head coaches should come up off their wallets a little bit to help fix this. I am all for getting all you can, but not at the expense of the people that make you successful. If a head coach is making $700,000 and he has assistants making $40,000 then he is a narcissist.

This rule will put 90% of our entire building from Salary to hourly employees.
We are a federally funded non profit that has no increased money to raise the salary of our managers to the new minimum or to pay overtime.

They tried to get non profits exempted from this law but that did not happen
People don't understand that many people over 55 are taking these lower paying jobs at non profits to provide services for seniors and children and to make ends meet.

This recent change by the federal labor board affected 1000s of people across the whole country but you never even heard about this on the news.
What have we heard about: Transgender Bathrooms. That's the world today

(05-20-2016 08:05 AM)stanman505 Wrote:  I can tell you from personal experience that I have turned down a college coaching position (Head Women's Tennis) because I make more money as a high school teacher and head high school coach. No college head coach, of any sport, should be making less than a high school teacher/coach.

But I doubt you'd make less as a college coach AND teacher, like you are for the high school. If you were only the coach at the high school, I bet you'd make less.

I don't really disagree with your point, but this isn't a good example of it.

I think there are likely jobs in a college athletic department that are 'worth' far less than what teachers do, especially if they ALSO coach a sport