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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Interesting) by EvilSS on Monday November 28 2016, @02:59PM

    by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 28 2016, @02:59PM (#434054)
    That article is terrible. I don't thing the author even understands what a "lame duck" even is. The article starts off talking about FDR. FDR was never a lame duck: he died in office three months into his fourth term! A Lame Duck is a politician who's successor has already been elected but hasn't taken office yet.

    Obama could similarly get a major free-trade pact with Pacific nations through the new Republican Congress, which would stimulate the economy and shore up our Asian allies.

    What!? The idea that Obama (or anyone) could negotiate and push through a new trade agreement before the inauguration is insane. Treaties take years to negotiate, and even with the work on TPP already done, it would need a major overhaul to get it past congress. I doubt they could get the negotiating committee formed before January.

    Most of the article is talking about stuff happening in 2nd (or 3rd in FDR's case) terms, but not during lame duck periods.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by EvilSS on Monday November 28 2016, @03:03PM

    by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 28 2016, @03:03PM (#434057)
    Holy crap I just realized that article was published November 2014. Yea, the author definitely does not understand the concept of a lame duck.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @03:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @03:54PM (#434069)

    The term "lame duck" officially applies to a President after there's a President-elect in waiting, but it is frequently applied to any second-term President. After Dubya won in 2004, he was rather defensive at a news conference, telling reporters "don't count us out."

    BTW note how scandals seem to dominate second terms, like nagging injuries for athletes in their thirties. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Lewinsky. Dubya's "scandal" was the collapse of the economy on his watch brought about, in large part, by lax oversight of the financial sector.

    Obama made it through his second term relatively unscathed, but he's exceptionally careful. I think historians will marvel at how good he was at the finer aspects of the job.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @10:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @10:01PM (#434250)

      > I think historians will marvel at how good he was at the finer aspects of the job.

      I suspect he will remembered for a few showboating remarks in his 2nd term and also for being satisfied to concede defeat "honorably" when given the opportunity. Always happy to explain to his supporters why we can't do things. SAD.

    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday November 29 2016, @01:05PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @01:05PM (#434435)
      The only people who use it to refer to a 2nd term president are people who just don't understand what it means or people trying to apply it for purely partisan reasons. A 2nd term president is far from a lame duck. It makes zero sense to try to expand the definition to include it.