Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's about taking low level employees ($23K is not a high wage, by any means.. works out to less than $12/hour) and declaring them "salaried" to get out of paying overtime.
This rule would have raised the amount at which that could be done.
Which yes, means companies can save on payroll, and people unlucky enough to be working such jobs can continue to have to work significant hours for very little pay.
However, with unemployment down, perhaps some of these "managers" (because one of the caveats is that they are performing "managerial" duties - like setting a basic schedule) can find real jobs and their cheap employers will be left to search for replacements.
I forget as I recall doubling it would have basically caught it back up to where it was 30 years ago with inflation? something like that. The number is too low and I know a number of companies that cheat on this to get out of overtime. The state recently went into one and forced them to switch 8 employees to hourly and pay them each several grand in back wages.
Raising the dollar amount and eliminating the complexity of the regulation would seem to be easier.
These rules infringe on a business's right to manage their organization. Overtime rules for hourly workers should not be extended without consideration of job duties and responsibilities. A federal guideline may be appropriate but clearly administration of wage policies is highly dependant on local issues and rules mandating specific policies cannot be made on a national level without unproductive distortions.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
I don't think doubling it will cost a lot of jobs, more likely cuts in hours. The employers that hire in fast food and retail will get around this by hiring a few more supervisors/managers to avoid paying them overtime, and may reduce the hours of some workers to balance the books. They are not likely to pay their managers double to meet exempt requirements, since they are only getting $1-2 an hour more than the people they supervise now.
I don't think doubling it will cost a lot of jobs, more likely cuts in hours. The employers that hire in fast food and retail will get around this by hiring a few more supervisors/managers to avoid paying them overtime, and may reduce the hours of some workers to balance the books. They are not likely to pay their managers double to meet exempt requirements, since they are only getting $1-2 an hour more than the people they supervise now.
That's the whole point. They won't pay them overtime, because they won't have to - because they're "managers" at $23,000 a year.
I was also concerned about the change's potential effect on jobs. I do believe the salary threshold for overtime exemption needs to be increased, but I would have suggested a more gradual implementation (gradual meaning a minimum of several years, potentially up to a decade or more).
If I'm not mistaken, the original directive from the Obama administration was issued May 2016 and scheduled to go into effect December 2016. Imagine you're a large employer and you've been told the threshold for overtime exemption has been doubled, and you have just seven months to apply it to the potentially thousands of currently-exempt employees you may have nationwide. I didn't think that was a reasonable amount of time for employers to adjust, and very likely would have resulted in layoffs, hiring freezes, slashes in products and services provided by the businesses, and/or all the other unpleasant things that happen when employers get hit with left-field regulatory news that presents an immediate threat to their bottom line.
I was also concerned about the change's potential effect on jobs. I do believe the salary threshold for overtime exemption needs to be increased, but I would have suggested a more gradual implementation (gradual meaning a minimum of several years, potentially up to a decade or more).
If I'm not mistaken, the original directive from the Obama administration was issued May 2016 and scheduled to go into effect December 2016. Imagine you're a large employer and you've been told the threshold for overtime exemption has been doubled, and you have just seven months to apply it to the potentially thousands of currently-exempt employees you may have nationwide. I didn't think that was a reasonable amount of time for employers to adjust, and very likely would have resulted in layoffs, hiring freezes, slashes in products and services provided by the businesses, and/or all the other unpleasant things that happen when employers get hit with left-field regulatory news that presents an immediate threat to their bottom line.
Correct. Just because Saul Alinsky signs off on it does not make it sane government regulation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
