SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Common Dreams reports
[On November 22, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of Texas] halted an Obama administration rule that would have expanded overtime pay for millions of workers, a decision that was slammed by employees' rights advocates.
The U.S. Department of Labor rule, which was set to go into effect on December 1, would have made overtime pay available to full-time salaried employees making up to $47,476 a year. It was expected to touch every nearly every sector [1] in the U.S. economy. The threshold for overtime pay was previously set at $23,660, and had been updated once in 40 years--meaning any full-time employees who earned more than $23,600 were not eligible for time-and-a-half when they worked more than 40 hours a week.
[...] Workers' rights advocates reacted with dismay and outrage. David Levine, CEO and co-founder of the American Sustainable Business Council, mourned the ruling, saying the opponents were "operating from short-sighted, out-moded thinking".
"The employees who will be hurt the most and the economies that will suffer the most are in the American heartland, where wages are already low", Levine said. "When employers pay a fair wage, they benefit from more productive, loyal, and motivated employees. That's good for a business' bottom line and for growing the middle class that our nation's economy depends on. High road businesses understand that better compensation helps build a better work culture."
[...] Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), noted [2] that the rule would have impacted up to 12.5 million workers, citing research by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
"The business trade associations and Republican-led states that filed the litigation in Texas opposing the rules have won today, but will not ultimately prevail in their attempt to take away a long-overdue pay raise for America's workers", she said. "Unfortunately, for the time being, workers will continue to work longer hours for less pay thanks to this obstructionist litigation."
[1][2] Content is behind scripts.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 28 2016, @02:01PM
To me, this isn't about more or less pay, this is about shaping employer behaviors.
If the extra money is so hurtful to the employer, then cut the base pay back so that the take home is the same. The law isn't dictating that contracts can't be renegotiated, quite the opposite.
Overall, I'd rather have a workforce of 125 salaried employees working an average of 40-45 hours a week, instead of a workforce of 75 salaried employees working 70+ hours a week, plus 50 people out of work (drawing unemployment benefits until they become an even bigger drain on the economy by having health and housing problems they can't pay for).
Grooming one for more responsibility while paying them less than $25,000 a year is a joke. At $25K per year, they're still living with their parents.
🌻🌻 [google.com]