PDA

View Full Version : Federal-mandated higher threshhold for overtime pay


frostfire
05-18-2016, 05:47
increasing efficiency and job satisfaction or breeding complacency?

When I worked manufacturing, as an engineer I was salaried and did not get overtime. Get the job done, and done well, or the pink slip is coming. When I worked healthcare, I worked less hours, less annual figure on paper, but ended up making more with overtime. When I worked govertment jobs, I was told to pack it before overtime....thus "good enough for government work" :rolleyes:

hmmmm...dicey.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-overtime-pay_us_5727b961e4b0bc9cb0442db9

The Labor Department announced Tuesday that it completed one of the most ambitious economic reforms of the Obama era, finalizing a new rule that will extend overtime protections to millions of additional workers.

The administration will accomplish that by raising what’s known as the overtime salary threshold. Nearly all workers earning salaries beneath that threshold are entitled to time-and-a-half pay whenever they work more than 40 hours in a week.

The current threshold is just $23,660. The White House will be doubling that number, to $47,476, guaranteeing overtime rights for salaried workers earning less than that. The Labor Department will now update the threshold every three years to make sure it keeps pace with inflation.

The White House estimates that the change will bring overtime rights to 4.2 million workers who are currently excluded. It will also clarify eligibility for another 8.9 million workers who may or may not have overtime protections under the current rules, officials said.

On a call with reporters Tuesday, Labor Secretary Tom Perez said the reform was meant to address “both underpay and overwork.”

“The overtime rule is about making sure middle-class jobs pay middle-class wages,” Perez said. “Some will see more money in their pockets … Some will get more time with their family … and everybody will receive clarity on where they stand, so that they can stand up for their rights.”

With a minimum wage hike blocked on Capitol Hill, expanding overtime was the most aggressive way for the Obama administration to raise wages for private-sector workers. The White House is making the reforms through the executive rule-making process, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It doesn’t need congressional approval to do so, although Republicans may still try to block the reforms through the appropriations process. Obama first laid out his overtime plan in a blog post on The Huffington Post last year.

Passed during the Great Depression, America’s overtime law was meant to protect workers from being worked too long and paid too little. The rules guarantee that workers get paid extra when they work extra. The rules also discourage employers from working employees long hours by making it more expensive to do so, through a time-and-a-half premium.

But under the current regulations, many working-class employees who earn above the low salary threshold are classified as “managers” and therefore don’t have overtime rights. Employers have an incentive to pile work onto these employees, since their extra time essentially comes for free. As a result, in retail some store managers will clock 60, 70 or even 80 hours, but only take home a modest salary in the $30,000 range.

The percentage of workers who are overtime-eligible has fallen dramatically in recent decades. In 1975, 62 percent of salaried workers had overtime rights; now, that share is a mere 7 percent, according to White House estimates.

“And you wonder why the middle class is struggling,” Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday. “If you work overtime you should actually get paid for working overtime.”

Left-leaning economists have been urging the White House to make the overtime rules more generous to workers. The rules are fairly complicated, and the last time they were adjusted was in 2004, during the George W. Bush administration. Whether workers are entitled to overtime depends not just on their salary but also on their job duties, and whether they qualify as a manager or a professional. According to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, the changes during the Bush years made it more difficult for many workers to prove they qualify for overtime.

While the new rules will vastly expand eligibility, they are not as aggressive as they first seemed. The White House first signaled it would raise the threshold to $50,440. The final number is roughly $3,000 less than that. (The White House’s decision to scale back the proposal was first reported by Politico.) Perez said officials made that decision based on feedback during the rule’s public comment period. They chose $47,476 because it represents the earnings of the 40th percentile of salaried workers in the South, the lowest-income region.

Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of EPI, said the final rule does a “great job” of addressing two issues for the middle class: “the need for more time and the need for more money.”

“Overworked and underpaid managers, postdoctoral researchers, social workers, insurance claims workers, and many others will have their lives improved one way or another by this rule,” said Eisenbrey, who was one of the most vocal voices for the reform. “It’s great to see the government doing something significant to help the struggling middle class.”

EPI estimates that the effects could be greater than the White House anticipates. The group projects that 12.5 million workers will “directly benefit” from the new rules — slightly more than half of them women, and a disproportionate share of them African-American and Hispanic. The biggest effects will be felt in the South, where a larger share of workers are carved out of protections under the current rules.

Business groups lobbied hard against the new rules, claiming they would lead employers to cut back on hours, and force workers to start tracking their time as hourly employees. What the rules will undoubtedly do is give many employers a hard choice: Either limit workers’ hours to 40 per week so they don’t incur the time-and-a-half premium, or start paying workers more for the extra time they work.

In a statement Tuesday, the National Retail Federation, a trade group for retailers, called the reforms a “career killer.” “With the stroke of a pen, the Labor Department is demoting millions of workers,” the group said. “In the retail sector alone, hundreds of thousands of career professionals will lose their status as salaried employees and find themselves reclassified as hourly workers, depriving them of the workplace flexibility and other benefits they so highly-value.”

The White House finalized the rule now so that Republicans in Congress can’t bottle it up through the Congressional Review Act. Repub best shot now would be attaching a rider to spending legislation to block it, but it’s unlikely Democrats or the White House would go along with that. The new rules are slated to go into effect on Dec. 1.

Pete
05-18-2016, 05:59
Yeah, but it doesn't apply for the 25 & 25 crowd going over 40 hours.

It's not fair that part time workers working 25 hours and 25 hours on a second job don't get overtime pay.

I got time and a half washing dishes back in 1972.

Guy
05-18-2016, 06:30
Yeah, but it doesn't apply for the 25 & 25 crowd going over 40 hours.

It's not fair that part time workers working 25 hours and 25 hours on a second job don't get overtime pay.

I got time and a half washing dishes back in 1972.I thought time and a half was a reward for doing a good job...:lifter

mark46th
05-18-2016, 07:45
This will make anyone who was thinking about automation move forword with their plans. Wish I was in the robot business...

Pete
05-18-2016, 07:58
This will make anyone who was thinking about automation move forword with their plans. Wish I was in the robot business...


I will admit I had Hobart sitting against the back wall doing the heavy lifting.

Streck-Fu
05-18-2016, 08:16
“The overtime rule is about making sure middle-class jobs pay middle-class wages,” Perez said. “Some will see more money in their pockets … Some will get more time with their family … and everybody will receive clarity on where they stand, so that they can stand up for their rights.”

I guess that is their way of acknowledging the coming lay-offs.....

DIYPatriot
05-18-2016, 08:35
I guess that is their way of acknowledging the coming lay-offs.....

I noticed that, too. What a great spin on un-employment. They can now say, "Under our plan, mothers AND fathers get more time at home than they've ever had under any other administration. In fact, they'll have as much time as they can tolerate. Now, how they afford that home and feed their family is up to the rest of you."

Work harder, America. Millions addicted to welfare depend on you.

PedOncoDoc
05-18-2016, 08:37
Between this, the minimum wage hike and the "affordable" care act, this administration has encouraged business to hire more people at fewer hours.

Perhaps they're trying to decrease unemployment - but they are doing so by disproportionately increasing underemployment.


Smoke and mirrors....

DIYPatriot
05-18-2016, 08:43
Perhaps they're trying to decrease unemployment - but they are doing so by disproportionately increasing underemployment.


Further increasing the number of people addicted to "free" phones and other programs, thus increasing the number of people who'll vote for them and keep them in office.

Old Dog New Trick
05-18-2016, 09:23
"In politics and life IGNORANCE is not a virtue." (BHO)

Bleed Green
05-18-2016, 09:26
“Some will see more money in their pockets … Some will get more time with their family … and everybody will receive clarity on where they stand, so that they can stand up for their rights.”

That is comforting since the PP before last they took away 4 hours of comp time earned for having to stay late to process criminal cases due to the influx that the Administration says is not happening, and last PP they took away 36 hours of night differential earned for the privilege of working midnights. I'll be holding my breath this PP when I hit the submit button for my T&A. :munchkin:munchin It is a good thing that I wound up 5 grades over my projected INS apex and never got into this profession to make more money or have more time with my family.:D:D:D

Sigaba
05-18-2016, 09:36
I noticed that, too. What a great spin on un-employment. They can now say, "Under our plan, mothers AND fathers get more time at home than they've ever had under any other administration. In fact, they'll have as much time as they can tolerate. Now, how they afford that home and feed their family is up to the rest of you."

Work harder, America. Millions addicted to welfare depend on you.

Further increasing the number of people addicted to "free" phones and other programs, thus increasing the number of people who'll vote for them and keep them in office.How do you go from the information in the OP to your editorial comments about welfare dependency?

Those most familiar with the new rule say that it most affects the middle class, and that the rule will lead to increased under employment, not unemployment.Business groups lobbied hard against the new rules, claiming they would lead employers to cut back on hours, and force workers to start tracking their time as hourly employees. What the rules will undoubtedly do is give many employers a hard choice: Either limit workers’ hours to 40 per week so they don’t incur the time-and-a-half premium, or start paying workers more for the extra time they work.

In a statement Tuesday, the National Retail Federation, a trade group for retailers, called the reforms a “career killer.” “With the stroke of a pen, the Labor Department is demoting millions of workers,” the group said. “In the retail sector alone, hundreds of thousands of career professionals will lose their status as salaried employees and find themselves reclassified as hourly workers, depriving them of the workplace flexibility and other benefits they so highly-value.”

cbtengr
05-18-2016, 09:52
From the article :

The current threshold is just $23,660. The White House will be doubling that number, to $47,476, guaranteeing overtime rights for salaried workers earning less than that.

“And you wonder why the middle class is struggling,” Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday. “If you work overtime you should actually get paid for working overtime.”

Can someone please tell me what is considered middle class? I do not think Biden knows. At any rate I know that the administration means well and this will be a great talking point for them during this election cycle.

Old Dog New Trick
05-18-2016, 09:56
Can someone please tell me what is considered middle class? .

Those American's who still pay taxes and receive very little if anything from the government they support! You silly rabbit! :p

VVVV
05-18-2016, 11:10
In a statement Tuesday, the National Retail Federation, a trade group for retailers, called the reforms a “career killer.” “With the stroke of a pen, the Labor Department is demoting millions of workers,” the group said. “In the retail sector alone, hundreds of thousands of career professionals will lose their status as salaried employees and find themselves reclassified as hourly workers, depriving them of the workplace flexibility and other benefits they so highly-value.”


"Career Professionals"! "Lose their Status"! LMAO!

PedOncoDoc
05-18-2016, 11:13
Those American's who still pay taxes and receive very little if anything from the government they support! You silly rabbit! :p

So by your definition, the middle class is everyone who pays taxes and is not employed by the government?

:confused:

cbtengr
05-18-2016, 11:27
The reason I ask is that every election is all about the "Middle Class", as if I would believe that any of them really care. Another question then, just how many classes are there? Old Dog I am sure your take on it is dead on if not pretty close.

Old Dog New Trick
05-18-2016, 11:34
So by your definition, the middle class is everyone who pays taxes and is not employed by the government?

:confused:

Huh? :confused:

A person whether employed by the government or private sector who makes enough but not too much income every year to pay full income taxes and not receive any federal tax credits or social handouts for children, education, medical claims (not eligible for Medicaid/Medicare) or AMT - are probably "Middle Class."

Those that fall below that pay very little if anything in income taxes, receive multiple incentives and free services for children to receive education and nutrition benefits, access to medical screening and a host of other benefits some are excluded from receiving due to income caps.

Then there are those above Middle Class that have CPAs, lawyers and investment programs to limit the amount of money in taxes they pay to play. Show me a "Middle Class" person who even knew about Mossack Fonseca?

In a nut shell: the Middle Class is too wealthy to be poor and too poor to be wealthy. ;)

PedOncoDoc
05-18-2016, 11:56
In a nut shell: the Middle Class is too wealthy to be poor and too poor to be wealthy. ;)

That is a more accessible definition.


I was more suggesting that very few get anything from the government if they aren't receiving a government paycheck, and those that are are getting little more than that. ;)

PSM
05-18-2016, 11:59
Can someone please tell me what is considered middle class?

Since Karl Marx coined the definition of the classes, lets ask the Marxists what they think it is:

Some sections of workers on good incomes may consider themselves middle class. But from a Marxist perspective, taken in the broadest sense, those who work for a salary or wage, are almost all part of the working class. Teachers, lecturers, civil servants, for instance are more and more becoming an integral part of the working class, from the point of view of the class struggle. The civil servants, for instance, once popularly considered a section of the lower middle class in their entirety, have developed a strong trade union, which, at the time of writing, is playing a leading role in trade union struggles.

http://www.marxist.net/marx/m2frame.htm?workingclass.htm

It seems to me that it's the "workers" who are comfortable in life and are not subject to being recruited to "the struggle".

ETA: Where in The Constitution of the United States of America does the Federal Government get the power to dictate anything relating to employment or wages?

Pat

Hand
05-18-2016, 12:10
Where in The Constitution of the United States of America does the Federal Government get the power to dictate anything relating to employment or wages?
Pat

... or education, or health care, or how many lgbtqx type bathrooms are in your school.

Sigaba
05-18-2016, 12:22
Since Karl Marx coined the definition of the classes[...]Adam Smith wrote of classes in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The framers of the Constitution also wrote of socio economic classes.

PSM
05-18-2016, 13:28
Adam Smith wrote of classes in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The framers of the Constitution also wrote of socio economic classes.

Class struggle/warfare, then.

Pat

DIYPatriot
05-18-2016, 14:46
How do you go from the information in the OP to your editorial comments about welfare dependency?


The short answer? Experience. I've been underemployed. It's not an easy life.

A more concise and articulate answer? Start here (http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2003043948.pdf)

Sigaba
05-18-2016, 15:31
A more concise and articulate answer? Start here (http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2003043948.pdf)
Mr. Dooley and Ms. Prause state that an objective of their work is to understand better the impact of underemployment on the health of the under employed. You pointed to the economic impact of those on welfare on society as a whole and the impact of the welfare "addicted" on electoral politics.

Those are two distinctly different arguments.

Moreover, Dooley and Prause approach the issue of employment with a high level of granularity while you speak of unemployment in much broader terms and, IMO, with different connotations.

As for your personal experiences, if you are saying that you've been caught on the short end of the software industry's use of job classifications to leverage the skills of independent contractors...?

One other question. Why do you quote a Fabian Socialist (http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Shaw/shwFSCover.html) (G.B. Shaw) in your signature and yet rail against socialism in many of your posts?

DIYPatriot
05-18-2016, 15:39
I haven't always been a software engineer and taken out of context, one line quotes have different meanings for different people.

GratefulCitizen
05-18-2016, 23:15
Suspect that pay and/or working conditions will improve for more productive employees.
Also suspect that pay and/or working conditions will degrade for less productive employees.

Don't really see a problem.