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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Judge Suspends Rule Expanding Overtime for Millions of Workers

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
A Federal Judge in Texas has apparently stopped Obama's new regulation about salaried employees getting overtime.

I guess there is a current qualification for salaried OT but it sounds confusing.

This was supposed to go into effect Dec 1st.

Not all businesses are the same.


Judge Suspends Rule Expanding Overtime for Millions of Workers

A federal judge in Texas issued a nationwide injunction on Tuesday against an Obama administration regulation expanding by millions the number of workers who would be eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay.

The regulation was scheduled to take effect on Dec. 1. It would raise the salary limit below which workers automatically qualified for overtime pay to $47,476 from $23,660.

The judge, Amos L. Mazzant III of the Eastern District of Texas, ruled that the Obama administration had exceeded its authority by raising the overtime salary limit so significantly. The ruling was hailed by business groups who argued the new rules would be costly and result in fewer hours for workers.




posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Overtime for salary workers? What? I'm an hourly worker and the shop I work at doesn't offer overtime at all. You can get extra hours but it's reported as bonus money to the feds so you actually make LESS working past 40 hours a week here. Granted this is definetly against the law but the sad part is, my boss can get away with it because no one with the power to stop it gives two $#!^$ and a Flying $@@% about Blue Collar Wage Slaves.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Finally, those people who were working 50-60 hours are free to not be put in a higher tax bracket. That was a close one.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Many companies preempted this move by bumping the salary up past the threshold on workers who would have qualified for this. I know because I was one of them. Hope they don't take it back now... Lol.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


I guess there is a current qualification for salaried OT but it sounds confusing.

It works like this:

The difference between salaried and hourly workers is that hourly workers are paid by the hours they work. If they work twice as many hours, they make twice the (gross) pay. But anything over 40 hours a week must, by law, be considered overtime and generally reimbursed at time-and-a-half rates. Salaried employees are paid a set rate per week (or two weeks, or month) regardless of how many hours they actually work. They usually wind up working much more than 40 hours a week, but then again, usually they can drop their hours back in cases like family emergencies and not lose any pay.

Salary is supposed to be for managers and professional occupations. But now, some lower-paying positions, including fast-food-management, are paying a manager $23,670 per year salary just so they can get extra hours for free. This was one of the things Obama did right. If someone is making less salary than people want the minimum wage raised to, they should get overtime... regardless of whether or not their nametag says "Manager" on it.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Obama did good for once and there's no sense in striking it down just because Obama signed it. Not saying that's the case, but... Texas...

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What is the line between "significant" and not significant and how does the Judge quantify it. I would expect that if the President can require overtime, he can require it for any salary level. Maybe the judge should be suspended....



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I think it is regulatory overreach on the other hand I think if you work extra you should be paid extra.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: 191stMIDET
Overtime for salary workers? What? I'm an hourly worker and the shop I work at doesn't offer overtime at all. You can get extra hours but it's reported as bonus money to the feds so you actually make LESS working past 40 hours a week here. Granted this is definetly against the law but the sad part is, my boss can get away with it because no one with the power to stop it gives two $#!^$ and a Flying $@@% about Blue Collar Wage Slaves.


It would seem like an anonymous note to the Department of Labor may help but you would be taking a chance on retribution.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
This really isn't that confusing, the thrust of the change was the increase to $47k and some change for the minimum compensation for salaried employees. TheRedneck explained the reasons for it fairly succinctly.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated
I'm not torn, especially when I look at the ceo's pay.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for the explanation, I understand the issue better now. It is too bad that fast food workers, especially managers, aren't paid more. These days those jobs (and others like it) are all some people can get. Maybe Trump will bring a lot more middle-class jobs back to the U.S.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: xuenchen

Finally, those people who were working 50-60 hours are free to not be put in a higher tax bracket. That was a close one.

I doubt very few fear that, if any at all.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I'm torn on it too. On one hand, I would love to see those managers who pull 70 and 80 hours a week get the pay.

However, it applied to public employees too. My son that works for a college said it could have hurt them tremendously, even to the point of having to cut his hourly job out entirely. (God I cannot afford for him to come back home lol)

Pros and cons.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: 191stMIDET
Overtime for salary workers? What? I'm an hourly worker and the shop I work at doesn't offer overtime at all. You can get extra hours but it's reported as bonus money to the feds so you actually make LESS working past 40 hours a week here. Granted this is definetly against the law but the sad part is, my boss can get away with it because no one with the power to stop it gives two $#!^$ and a Flying $@@% about Blue Collar Wage Slaves.


Well this is where a strong workforce and union would come in handy.. For years overtime has been slowly taken away from the worker, there would be a time where working Boxing day or New years day would see you get double salary but thanks to the McDonalization of jobs you now have a workforce that has to beg for a minimum wage job that actually offers a full working week.

The one thing I have learned in my working life is it very rarely ever gets better for the average Joe yet the compaines seem to grab ever increasing profits..


RA



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: 191stMIDET
Overtime for salary workers? What? I'm an hourly worker and the shop I work at doesn't offer overtime at all. You can get extra hours but it's reported as bonus money to the feds so you actually make LESS working past 40 hours a week here. Granted this is definetly against the law but the sad part is, my boss can get away with it because no one with the power to stop it gives two $#!^$ and a Flying $@@% about Blue Collar Wage Slaves.


And the news reporting today that Trump will absolutely NOT support overtime. This is one of the things about blue-collar workers supporting him. They know not what they do.

But why would he? He's NEVER been out for the 'little guy". He doesn't want entrepreneurs to have to pay overtime, because HE IS ONE (an entrepreneur).

GET IT NOW?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

If he does, all these regulations won't be needed.

Labor works like any other commodity. If there's too many Skittles made and people don't like them, the price drops to sell them off and most of them get wasted. If it drops low enough, no one will make Skittles any more. But if there's only a few Skittles and everyone wants them, the price goes up and people take better care of their Skittles stash.

Price controls never work in the long run. Neither do regulations. The market forces are too strong to be controlled that easily. Right now we have few jobs, and even fewer that pay well. We have a lot of people needing jobs. The price for labor drops and workers are treated like crap.

Bring in more jobs, good jobs, and there won't be enough people to fill them all, especially good people. Employers will start looking after their employees better and the pay will increase. No minimum wage or regulations needed.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The biggest issue I see is that not all businesses are the same, but these regulations get applied to all within an industry with little ability to adjust based on an individual business's unique factors.

I work in sales in finance industry. There was a lawsuit a couple of years ago because a large company in my industry employed a lot of telemarketers. Sales people typically work on 100% commission. Well, what was happening was this company had a big boiler room telemarketer setup and all these employees banging the phones for sales. Because they are 100% commission, if they aren't closing any transactions, many are working for less than minimum wage despite putting in a lot of hours if they don't close enough business. For example, you work 9 to 5 for a week but only close one deal so you make say $100. That is well below minimum wage. The employees sued and won.

Long story short, government passed a regulation saying that all sales people in my industry must make minimum wage. So if a sales person doesn't earn enough commissions, the company will still payout minimum wage. So now, my company has to track my hours and payout minimum wage if I have a pay period where I didn't close any transactions.

Here is where it gets crazy. Because my company isn't a boiler room and only employs those of a certain caliber, our average sales person probably clears north of $200k/yr with some breaking $1 million in compensation. However, our company still has to track the hours of these highly paid sales folks just to comply with the regulations designed for a company whose typical sales person might make $40k. Makes zero sense that this regulation applies to a company like I work for but this is how regulations work sometimes.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
too many loop-holes in the take home pay structure for salaried personnel...

their average extra time on the job is factored in their salary... their OT rate is already factored in...
the 'minimum' salary with a maximum of hours of OT having a NEW base-floor of $47,476. would put a lot of fast-food managers in the 'seeking-position' situation... even if the desired $10 hr. minimum wage gets passed

with all the software available a manager can be 'clocked out' with only a 8.5 hour shift daily = 42.5 hr week
and a replacement manager immediately cycle in so that neither of the 3 managers constituting a 24 hour operation would qualify for a 'Salary' that exceeds 45 hours week (with 5 hrs @ 1.5X pay)

a project manager or such...usually eats the extra time committed to get-the-job-done BUT sometimes gets a BONUS to boot on-top of that Salary (because delays are expected but never fully factored into the project)

... few pizza operations or burger flippers have 'black-swan' events disrupting their production routines so the 'managers' raking in $23.6K have a golden goose in their backpack

wage-price controls are too Socialist for me... but working from the Government listing of 'prevailing wage for each job would be a start to finding the better of all equitable pay rate calculations



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
There is nothing to be confused about.

People that shouldn't be eligible for OT are until a judge said no.

Obama did not raise that out of the 'goodness' of his heart either.

Since the tax rate here is PROGRESSIVE. That meant the more TAXES people would be paying.

Essentially a net zero gain for those who needed the income increase.

That judge just save millions of Americans from paying more taxes, and losing their state benefits.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We agree 100%.

Obummer got something right... At least half right. It was too big of jump in so little of time.

In my professional atmosphere (publishing, and I'm a senior graphic designer) we made a lot of adjustments for this. I was working 50 hours plus to not even stay afloat in my workload.

The hours situation of give and take never benefits the worker at my place of work. You always are forced to make your time up and most of the time, and then some because the fact you had to take off.

I was really looking forward to this law. It was really working well for the while my company started to be forced to understand what they were doing to the employees. I know they will soon go back to the old ways. Oh by the way... On the first two years I worked there, turnover was 300%.




top topics



 
6

log in

join