Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 28 2016, @12:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the longer-hours-for-same-pay dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday November 28 2016, @02:34PM

    by fritsd (4586) on Monday November 28 2016, @02:34PM (#434049) Journal

    So.. a company ordering its employee to operate heavy machinery for 70 hours per week is OK, because it would be beyond the powers of the government to set criteria to say: "for that job description, more than 40 hours means overtime"?
    I mean, if the government can't force companies to hire more people and keep more citizens healthy (=less overworked) by setting *salary* criteria ("if your employee earns less than X, then more than 40 hours means overtime") then why would same government have the right to set *different kinds* of criteria, like job description?

    As a result it would be laissez-faire, let the companies work their employees 'till they break, the Invisible Hand will make those employees look for better work.
    And if a bulldozer driver accidentally damages critical infrastructure because he doesn't get enough sleep, well that's paid by the taxpayer.
    How much sleep do heart surgeons get, in general? They're paid well. Is that enough?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by BK on Monday November 28 2016, @04:21PM

    by BK (4868) on Monday November 28 2016, @04:21PM (#434077)

    So.. a company ordering its employee to operate heavy machinery for 70 hours per week is OK

    Well... Not exactly. The exemption is based on role, and the roles that qualify for exemption are bona-fide executive, administrative, and professional employees. A heavy equipment operator is probably not any of these. One could argue the meaning of 'professional' in the statute, but in the 1930s when the original law was written, it clearly applied to 'white collar' roles with a usual degree of formal training and certification - architects, engineers, lawyers, doctors, etc.

    Your heavy equipment operator would be 'skilled' or 'semi-skilled' rather than 'professional' and would only qualify for exempt status if he were a supervisor (administrative).

    I mean, if the government can't force companies [...]

    Actually, that's not at issue. If the ruling is correct on the merits, it indicates that the government CAN have the power you mention, but DOES NOT because the legislature (congress) has not passed a law granting that power (yet). The DOL/ Executive is therefore overstepping the authority it has been given under the law.

    That said, the ruling is complete bullsh*t and will probably** be overturned by an appeals court. The fact is that 'professional' is actually quite ambiguous. And 'bona fide' is a qualifier for supposed executives and administrators. It's hard to explain how a miscellaneous desktop (computer) support person would be a 'professional' in the same way that doctors or architects are. Is a college professor a 'professional'? How about a kindergarten 'teacher'? The specification of a minimum salary was an attempt to address this - if you make less than $X, you probably are not a 'bona fide' executive or 'professional' as the statute requires; if you make more then you probably are.

    **probably - the issue is that pursuing this case may not be important to the next administration and so may be dropped. It clearly wasn't all that important to the current administration or it would have been done years ago.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @08:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @08:51PM (#434210)

    That heavy machinery usually has air conditioning, a nice comfortable seat, and maybe somewhere to rest your paperwork. It sounds like a desk job to me!

    Maybe they can provide a new job title for it, like 'Heavy Lifting Manager' and start paying them salaried at a fraction of their normal hourly cost.

    I kid, but only somewhat.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:34PM (#434500)

    No, it is not beyond the powers of the government, the court found it was beyond the powers of the executive branch.

    Such a change would have to come from the legislature. At least that is my understanding of the ruling.