ADVERTISEMENT

New Overtime Exec Order Coming

22*43*51

HR Legend
Nov 23, 2008
16,430
4,299
113
Is this Obama giving the nod to Sanders? Only if it is viewed successfully I suppose.

President Obama announced Monday night a rule change that would make millions more Americans eligible for overtime pay.

The rule would raise the salary threshold below which workers automatically qualify for time-and-a-half overtime wages to $50,440 a year from $23,660, according to an op-ed article by the president in The Huffington Post.

“Right now, too many Americans are working long days for less pay than they deserve,” the president wrote.

The administration has the power to issue the regulation, which would restore the overtime salary threshold to roughly where it stood in 1975 in terms of purchasing power, without congressional approval.

Advocates for the change immediately hailed the decision.

“The president said he wanted to go big here and he did,” said Jared Bernstein, a former White House economist who co-wrote an influential report on the benefits of expanding overtime pay after leaving the administration in 2011. “I can’t think of any other rule change or executive order that would lift more middle-class workers.”

At least two candidates for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have urged action on the overtime regulations.

Conservatives and business groups have bitterly opposed the idea, warning that it will cost jobs. The National Retail Federation, a trade group, has argued that expanded overtime will “add to employers’ costs, undermine customer service, hinder productivity, generate more litigation opportunities for trial lawyers and ultimately harm job creation.”

The rule, which would most likely be completed in 2016, would give workers whose salary is between the current threshold and the new threshold a raise if they work more than 40 hours a week. Advocates on both sides of the issue expect the policy to be challenged in court and perhaps in Congress as well.

Republicans could, for example, attach a so-called rider undoing the change to must-pass appropriations measures later this year.

The momentum for the rule change increased after Mr. Bernstein and a colleague, Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute, wrote their report in late 2013, one of a number of papers the Labor Department commissioned to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

By March 2014, the president had been won over, ordering the department to revise federal overtime rules. What followed was escalating pressure from labor, liberal activists, and Democratic politicians encouraging the administration to expand overtime eligibility as broadly as possible, despite pushback from businesses.

That was particularly true after reports last fall that the administration was considering a more modest rule change.

“We made it known that critics are going to criticize them no matter what they do,” said Kelly Ross, deputy policy director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “If what they want to do is have an impact on wages, they need to go big here.”

Assuming the rule is put in place, economists believe that many employers will most likely reduce workers’ hours so as to save on overtime pay. Even so, the White House believes the rule could affect nearly five million workers in the short term. Meanwhile, any attempt to scale back hours could increase hiring.

Over the longer term, the effect of the rule could diminish substantially as employers offer new hires a lower base wage. This could make their overall pay, including the higher overtime wage, equivalent to what comparable employees make today in the absence of the overtime rule.

In that case, Mr. Bernstein said, future workers would only benefit if they end up working more overtime hours than the employer expected when negotiating their wage. Under the proposed rule, the overtime threshold will be indexed to some measure to rise over time, although the exact measure isn’t likely to be settled until after a public comment period.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/b...e-americans-eligible-for-overtime.html?ref=us
 
I assume the White House also will have to approve all new hires. Not to mention making sure the toilet paper in the washroom is soft enough. You can't let private companies make these decisions on their own; they might not make the decision you think they should. Good for the dictator....er, president.
 
I assume the White House also will have to approve all new hires. Not to mention making sure the toilet paper in the washroom is soft enough. You can't let private companies make these decisions on their own; they might not make the decision you think they should. Good for the dictator....er, president.
No kidding. These guys can't run their agencies and administrations (Obama walks around perpetually clueless about things that his administration is doing, at least he gets to pretend to be so when convenient) but they think they can reach into every business across the country and dictate better practices. It is so exhausting.

I really, really, really don't get the mindset that people are too stupid, careless, selfish, and/or short-sighted and can't be trusted to interact and make decisions amongst each other in a private market without massive big-brother oversight and dictates...yet they are fully trusted to make enlightened decisions in the voting booth when selecting these overseers...and the overseers themselves are generally considered some otherworldly breed of benevolent, intelligent, and selfless beings that have somehow emerged from the rest of the unwashed masses to lead us to utopia if only we continue to let them make more and more decisions on our behalf.
 
Not in substance, but certainly in tone. Labor rights are the key to America's greatness. Strengthen labor and you solve most every problem we face.

LOL. I like having the right to work harder and smarter than you, and be more successful. I understand those who can't compete, and want the government to even the playing field.
 
Not in substance, but certainly in tone. Labor rights are the key to America's greatness. Strengthen labor and you solve most every problem we face.
LOL...only in the progressive world where "tone" trumps "substance" every time.
 
Does that mean everyone who makes less than that? Or only certain types of jobs?
 
Looks to me like it will just increase the number of PTE's and could reduce the number of FTE's. I bet the FTE's that enjoyed the over-time pay will be pissed when their paychecks are reduced from this "order"...
 
LOL. I like having the right to work harder and smarter than you, and be more successful. I understand those who can't compete, and want the government to even the playing field.
Weird comment, I bet you like getting paid for that too.
 
Well it's about time.

This is a superficial measure, that will have little impact on the American worker.

If the GOP opposes, the Libs will spin it into another "War on ____" (the Working Man in this instance) and ride that into the 2016 general.

They still haven't settled onto which "oppression" will get out the vote the best.

If the GOP doesn't oppose then the Libs can just have it as a feather in their cap and take a heroes stance for the American worker. Even though, like I said, it's a superficial measure.
 
bKeLSct.jpg


For the American Worker...
 
This is a superficial measure, that will have little impact on the American worker.

If the GOP opposes, the Libs will spin it into another "War on ____" (the Working Man in this instance) and ride that into the 2016 general.

They still haven't settled onto which "oppression" will get out the vote the best.

If the GOP doesn't oppose then the Libs can just have it as a feather in their cap and take a heroes stance for the American worker. Even though, like I said, it's a superficial measure.
Why would anyone be against even superficial steps to fight any oppression? It keeps us on the correct path.
 
If the GOP opposes, the Libs will spin it into another "War on ____" (the Working Man in this instance) and ride that into the 2016 general.

joe-the-plumber-420x385.jpg


We know you hate the players, but we love the game ;)
 
This is a superficial measure, that will have little impact on the American worker.

If the GOP opposes, the Libs will spin it into another "War on ____" (the Working Man in this instance) and ride that into the 2016 general.

They still haven't settled onto which "oppression" will get out the vote the best.

If the GOP doesn't oppose then the Libs can just have it as a feather in their cap and take a heroes stance for the American worker. Even though, like I said, it's a superficial measure.
Why do you think it's a superficial measure?
 
Looks to me like it will just increase the number of PTE's and could reduce the number of FTE's. I bet the FTE's that enjoyed the over-time pay will be pissed when their paychecks are reduced from this "order"...

Yes, just more of the unintended consequences of liberal policies
 
Looks to me like it will just increase the number of PTE's and could reduce the number of FTE's. I bet the FTE's that enjoyed the over-time pay will be pissed when their paychecks are reduced from this "order"...

Yes, just more of the unintended consequences of liberal policies

More people working part time means hiring more people to pick up those hours.

Why would you think this is an unintended consequence?
 
Weird comment, I bet you like getting paid for that too.

I have not received any government mandated "overtime" for over 30 years. The fact that my comment seems "weird" to you simply reinforced my point. You and other liberals lack the confidence in your own ability to compete for and demand higher compensation for your work. Instead, you prefer to have the government force your employers to pay you more than you are worth.

I, on the other hand, am more than happy to sell my skills on the open market. If I thought that an employer was not sufficiently compensating me for my talents, time and effort, I go to work somewhere else where they adequately compensate me. Easy, unless you are not able to compete for the higher pay.

Of course, what the liberals always fail to understand is that these "floors" that they want, (like minimum wage) end up being ceilings for those who can distinguish themselves.
 
Why do you think it's a superficial measure?
It's not actually superficial. It is ill-conceived and destructive. The only thing superficial is Obama's economic acumen (or his intellectual/moral fiber in comparison to his need for political expediency).
 
Perhaps you are correct, and this administration intends to keep people underemployed, unproductive and even more dependent on government assistance.
Oh, it's more insidious than that. With large numbers of part time workers earning barely enough to get by (or maybe not enough to get by), and being left out of employer-provided health coverage, the moribund labor movement will get a huge shot in the arm. Lots of unhappy part timers will suddenly realize the value of unions and collective bargaining.
 
I assume the White House also will have to approve all new hires. Not to mention making sure the toilet paper in the washroom is soft enough. You can't let private companies make these decisions on their own; they might not make the decision you think they should. Good for the dictator....er, president.
Yeah, stupid government. Getting in the way of hiring children with their smaller, more nimble fingers to sew shirts in sweatshops and the such.
 
Oh, it's more insidious than that. With large numbers of part time workers earning barely enough to get by (or maybe not enough to get by), and being left out of employer-provided health coverage, the moribund labor movement will get a huge shot in the arm. Lots of unhappy part timers will suddenly realize the value of unions and collective bargaining.

thereby driving yet more jobs overseas
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepperman
Why do you think it's a superficial measure?

5 mil people is the max number affected. That is if they aren't limited to 40 hour a week roles as it is. In the private sector you are not going to find too many roles that are salaried and below 50k.(At least that has been my personal experience.)

How does this work for the public sector? Does this mean all teachers are going to get time and a half after 40?

Or, would their CBA keep them from this type of benefit?

Honest question.
 
but with his health insurance fiasco, nobody is allowed to work more than about 25-30 hrs a week if they don't get health insurance
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vroom_C14
And if those FTE's get cut to PTE's then what? Careful what you "hope" for...
I think you missed the point. If (for example) 2 FT employees are scaled back to PT and 1 new PTE is hired, that's 3 people working instead of 2.

If, through other measures - such as the $15/hr MW - we make sure those PT workers can earn an adequate wage, that's not just lower unemployment, it's also lower welfare payouts. And it almost certainly boosts demand, too, with positive ripple effects on the economy and hiring.
 
I have not received any government mandated "overtime" for over 30 years. The fact that my comment seems "weird" to you simply reinforced my point. You and other liberals lack the confidence in your own ability to compete for and demand higher compensation for your work. Instead, you prefer to have the government force your employers to pay you more than you are worth.

I, on the other hand, am more than happy to sell my skills on the open market. If I thought that an employer was not sufficiently compensating me for my talents, time and effort, I go to work somewhere else where they adequately compensate me. Easy, unless you are not able to compete for the higher pay.

Of course, what the liberals always fail to understand is that these "floors" that they want, (like minimum wage) end up being ceilings for those who can distinguish themselves.
Doesn't your profession bill by the hour?
 
I think you missed the point. If (for example) 2 FT employees are scaled back to PT and 1 new PTE is hired, that's 3 people working instead of 2.

If, through other measures - such as the $15/hr MW - we make sure those PT workers can earn an adequate wage, that's not just lower unemployment, it's also lower welfare payouts. And it almost certainly boosts demand, too, with positive ripple effects on the economy and hiring.
they will just raise the welfare threshold to like 50 or 80K a year
they did it for health insurance subsidies
 
I think you missed the point. If (for example) 2 FT employees are scaled back to PT and 1 new PTE is hired, that's 3 people working instead of 2.

If the hours are the same you still avoid the 1.5x pay rate. Also, if the PTE doesn't get benefits then 2 people vs. 3 people is moot. The math makes sense.
 
I think you missed the point. If (for example) 2 FT employees are scaled back to PT and 1 new PTE is hired, that's 3 people working instead of 2.

If, through other measures - such as the $15/hr MW - we make sure those PT workers can earn an adequate wage, that's not just lower unemployment, it's also lower welfare payouts. And it almost certainly boosts demand, too, with positive ripple effects on the economy and hiring.

Did you miss the main point in your response - you just eliminated a FTE to hire 2 PTE - how will that impact the family? The economy? Now that FTE must find another PT job to try and make ends meet! Or are you just wanting them to go on the government dime, I gotcha - I understand now...
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT