It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Millions of Americans Will Be Getting a Raise Soon Thanks to This Obscure Rule

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I'm not a salaried payed individual, however, if you are, a new proposal administered through the Department of Labor is expected to increase the threshold requirements that employers use to determine if a salary employee qualifies for over time pay.

As of now the threshold limit is set at 23,660, so if you make more than this as a salaried employee your employer doesn't have to pay overtime for any hours accrued over forty.

With this new proposal the White House is expected to raise the limit to 42,000 dollars per year, which will then literally entitle millions for overtime pay.

Source

As it stands now, if you're a salaried employee making more than $23,660 per year, your employer isn't required to pay overtime — 1.5 times your regular rate — when you work more than 40 hours per week. The Huffington Post reports the White House currently aims to increase the income threshold to about $42,000 a year, which would triple the number of salaried workers entitled to overtime.


edit on 17-1-2015 by Daedal because: edit




posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
1.5 times pay in worthless currency is still worth.....nothing.
The upshot would be small business going out of business......
Good way to further corporatize America.....
A better way would be to limit everyone to forty hours a week and hire extra people no?



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

It just means employers will not give additional hours to those that would increase the labor cost for those hours by 1.5 times.

Jeniuses in government pander to people to get their votes without explaining the consequences.

Same thing happened with ACA.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: stirling

Not necessarily. It depends on the management. Where I'm employed, we have the best labor throughout the company. We also run with the least amount of crew, but still have high numbers for service.

This also allowed us to give raises, the only company throughout the business who was able too.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

If I had to track or log my hours I would hate it. My job is too sporadic. I'm lucky as I never usually exceed 40 hours and the days I'm asked or have to stay late are balanced by the days I get to come in late and leave early.

Minimal overtime gets eaten up by taxes anyway. Maybe this is their strategy.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

Jamie is correct. Either the company will limit the salaried employees hours or pass the increase along to the end user, they are not going to foot the bill on any long term increase.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
You, my friend are probably the exception.....
Look at Wallymart and other corporate scams....
Everyone there works PART TIME.....thus no need to pay Unemployment insurance etc by the company...no overtime, no responsibility by the corporation to its employees....This legal rip off is practiced by many corporate retailers....Its a travesty, itys an insult to workers and it devalues us as humans to lowball us while raking in immense profits...
The government colludes with these corporate bastards to impoverish the working people thus further deny them opportunity to escape the enslavement.....
There would have been a revolution a while back if we could have afforded it....



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
If they do limit the hours to salaried employees as suggested, which sounds logical. Someone else would still have to pick up the hours that are left unworked. This could allow for more hours for others.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

And? It still will not be overtime. It will most likely be part time or below the overtime threshold.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I understand that. I'm trying to be optimistic about it you know. If a salaried employee works 55 hours a week now, and if the proposal succeeds, most likely they'd reduce his / her hours to avert overtime pay.

Instead of increasing prices to offset the cost, that is if they continued to work over 40 hrs, the hours left unworked could possibly be picked up by a lower wage person, thus increasing hours for some.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: stirling
1.5 times pay in worthless currency is still worth.....nothing.
The upshot would be small business going out of business......
Good way to further corporatize America.....
A better way would be to limit everyone to forty hours a week and hire extra people no?


I work for two contractors - different crafts but also with different approachs to business. The interesting thing is that the owners both consider themselves to be conservative. One business is sucessful, the other non-so-much.

The big difference is in the approach to their conservatism as applied to their business.

One - follows all the laws to the tee, overtime pay after 8 hours (the salary except/non-except threshold doesn't apply as all salaried employees make more then the new threshold), all regulations met, all payroll taxes paid, sales tax paid, no massaging the numbers on WC or other insurances fully company paid health mid-level insurance, PTO, profit-sharing & 401K, year-end bonuses. The owner is pretty young but learned the business from older people and runs the business for the benefit of everyone in the company.

This company is very profitable and run by a traditional conservative who believes in the rule of law for the benefit of everyone. He does grumble about certain regulations but complies with grace.

Two- a company always on the edge of colapse. Any over time is paid in cash and the WC numbers don't reflect those un-offical hours, sales tax numbers massaged. No benefits of any kind. All official payroll taxes paid and required insurances is maintained. Small symbolic year-end bonuses. This fellow is older and conservative in the sense that if he thinks a rule is wrong will do anything to skirt it. He also runs the business solely for his benefit and spends any retained earnings on himself. Not a bad guy, great salesman but inconsistant.

Two businesses, both run by conservatives, one consistant in their application and the other with inconsistant and egotistic application.

It's time that the exempt/non-exempt threshold be changed. A rule - change that benefits working people. True conservative would agree that this is appropriate and overdue.

The knee-jerk, reactionary, tool type of conservative will say it's a burden on small business owners. My experience with small business is that it will not effect them at all if - and it's a big if - they are well run in the first place.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Union jobs all get OT at 40 hours and usually double time for Sunday but unions are bad bad bad




posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
Union jobs all get OT at 40 hours and usually double time for Sunday but unions are bad bad bad



Its always bad for the rich when the working class thinks they may deserve a decent life



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
So does this mean that the wages of salaried workers will decrease and that there will be more low paid salary jobs created? Sounds to me that this is just a way of making the unemployment numbers look better. The average income of many people will go down because of this new law. How is this supposed to be better?



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
So does this mean that the wages of salaried workers will decrease and that there will be more low paid salary jobs created? Sounds to me that this is just a way of making the unemployment numbers look better. The average income of many people will go down because of this new law. How is this supposed to be better?


No - it does not mean that...



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Wouldn't this be wonderful....

To get rid of one of the top abuses of, at least American, corporations, who make people salaried just to avoid paying overtime when they cut other jobs and give the salaried the tasks to carry out on their own dime under threat of losing their jobs too.

And no, not all salaried salaries are high enough to compensate for the ridiculous expectations that people do two jobs and work 60-70 hours, weekends, and holidays even.

ETA; The raise would be welcome, but more welcome would be back pay or the hours so many people lost with their families and friends. Is there one of these for the pensions they stole and/or crashed too?
edit on 1/17/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: rickymouse
So does this mean that the wages of salaried workers will decrease and that there will be more low paid salary jobs created? Sounds to me that this is just a way of making the unemployment numbers look better. The average income of many people will go down because of this new law. How is this supposed to be better?


No - it does not mean that...


But it can work that way and many employers may find it beneficial to hire an extra person instead of paying the overtime rate.


edit on 17-1-2015 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Maybe so, but that too would be fitting and fairer and more of a win than what they've been doing.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

It just means employers will not give additional hours to those that would increase the labor cost for those hours by 1.5 times.

Jeniuses in government pander to people to get their votes without explaining the consequences.

Same thing happened with ACA.



1.5 times pay in worthless currency is still worth.....nothing.
The upshot would be small business going out of business......
Good way to further corporatize America.....
A better way would be to limit everyone to forty hours a week and hire extra people no?



Jamie is correct. Either the company will limit the salaried employees hours or pass the increase along to the end user, they are not going to foot the bill on any long term increase.



You, my friend are probably the exception.....
Look at Wallymart and other corporate scams....
Everyone there works PART TIME.....thus no need to pay Unemployment insurance etc by the company...no overtime, no responsibility by the corporation to its employees....This legal rip off is practiced by many corporate retailers....Its a travesty, itys an insult to workers and it devalues us as humans to lowball us while raking in immense profits...
The government colludes with these corporate bastards to impoverish the working people thus further deny them opportunity to escape the enslavement.....
There would have been a revolution a while back if we could have afforded it....


Is this all people do on this site? Find a reason to relentlessly bash the government and the 'evil' corporations? The world isn't a perfect place. People are terrible, blah blah blah, how many times does it need to be said before it becomes boring?



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
That communist will ruin companies in the country!!! If the people are willing to let companies work them like slaves for low wages then by God it is the companies right to work them that way. Letting wage slaves think they may be worth something will lead to a revolt against their betters the sooner this Socialist is out of office the better. That way we can get someone in there who knows who runs things in this nation.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join