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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Monday November 28 2016, @08:34PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 28 2016, @08:34PM (#434204) Journal

    The fair free market minimum wage without massive government intervention in "them programs" is probably about $15/hr

    Then why aren't those companies already paying $15 per hour? Why are we to suppose to that they would be paying more, if government weren't involved? And why are we to supposed that the fair free market minimum wage is going to be the same in downtown San Fransisco, California as it is in San Juan, Puerto Rico?

    What I find the most bizarre about this is that Walmart, etc are doing exactly what you want. They're giving poor people jobs and educating them about the social safety net. For that, you want to punish them? Here's the solution: don't look at this behavior as if it were a problem and it won't be. The real problem is your perception which is a thing you can fix quite readily.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday November 28 2016, @08:44PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 28 2016, @08:44PM (#434208)

    Then why aren't those companies already paying $15 per hour?

    Why would they? The government will take my money at the point of a gun to pay for Walmarts employees, so Walmart can make more money.

    There is a lot of skim of course. The savings is not passed along to the customers and the government does not work for free.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 28 2016, @09:36PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 28 2016, @09:36PM (#434236) Journal

      The government will take my money at the point of a gun to pay for Walmarts employees, so Walmart can make more money.

      Again, why isn't that what you wanted? Would we rather Walmart made more money from employing less poor people?

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 29 2016, @12:43PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @12:43PM (#434430)

        Well, yeah, obviously. A business that can't operate outside of a socialist economy is not really worth much.

        First of all its unethical to run a business thats theoretically capitalist but actually relies on socialist handouts

        Secondly its a race to the bottom. Why shouldn't my employer pay me $1 and just tell me to collect food stamps and welfare. An economic system structured that way isn't worth living in.

        Thirdly it doesn't scale. One all employers pay $1 to all employees and nobody pays any income tax there will be no tax dollars to fund the insanity. So they can destroy the currency by printing (electronically) or increase corporate taxes in which case capital will simply offshore and no one will be employed or receive any services again.

        A weak fourth argument is just because a scam existed that was formerly profitable, that of being a corporate welfare queen retailer, that doesn't imply "the system" or anyone in it has an implied obligation to perpetuate the scam.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:32PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:32PM (#434498) Journal

          Why shouldn't my employer pay me $1 and just tell me to collect food stamps and welfare.

          Why will you accept that? Race to the bottom doesn't work when there's plenty of employers to choose from. And let's keep in mind that the US had for more than half its life, virtually no employment regulation and yet no race to the bottom happened. Instead, it was seen globally as the best option for getting ahead with tens of millions of people making the difficult journey to the US. Even in the times of sweat shops and child labor, the US had the best paying sweat shops and the best paying jobs for children.

          The US's labor force has always been constrained by labor competition from the rest of the world. But it has always been better because the country was freer, more socially mobile, and able to maintain a labor pricing power advantage over its foreign competitors for centuries. Rather than support policies that undermine the US's advantages, maybe we should learn from history and do what works?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @10:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @10:11PM (#434254)

      I recently read that Costco pays an average wage of $22.
      I Googled that number to try to find that cite again and I got an even better page. [glassdoor.com]

      The lowest-paid worker at Costco is paid $11/hr to start, with an average of $12.43/hr for that position.
      ...yet Costco remains in business and, apparently, competitive with other retailers.

      .
      In this article, from before when Seattle et al. approved an even better wage, it is noted that A $10.10 Minimum Wage Would Make A [$16] DVD At Walmart Cost One Cent More [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [thinkprogress.org]
      (Costco gets a high-five there as well.)

      It goes on to say that even the $0.01 increase would be unnecessary if the corporate overlords would stop slimy practices like stock buy-backs.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 29 2016, @02:09AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 29 2016, @02:09AM (#434309)

    WalMart giving people sub-subsistence level employment and teaching their employees how to work the "social safety net" is what I find most disgusting about "my tax dollars at work." I don't want, nor need, anything from WalMart at their "deep discount" prices that are only possible with their tax subsidized workforce - they should pay their employees enough to live without simultaneously sponging off of government assistance, raise their prices to cover labor costs (gasp: $3.88 becomes $4.18) and then give their workers another 5% raise to cover their increased cost of living because of this vicious cycle. If this inflation of the bottom end goes far enough, that mom and pop hardware store downtown just might be able to reopen and compete.

    Bottom line, I'd rather get a $500 per year break on my taxes and have to pay $750 per year more for my goods and services due to the necessary increased costs of labor, but the truth is, it's the other way around - every dollar you sink into social services gets 50% eaten up by accounting and overhead before it ever has a chance to help out somebody in need. If the plan stayed revenue neutral, you might pay $750 per year more for goods and services due to increased labor costs, but your taxes _should_ go down by $1500 or more, after they get done re-training all the bureaucrats in the social security and selling off the real-estate their offices are in.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:23AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:23AM (#434330) Journal

      WalMart giving people sub-subsistence level employment and teaching their employees how to work the "social safety net" is what I find most disgusting about "my tax dollars at work."

      You can always find a better class of problem to be concerned about. I personally have better things to be concerned about than your tax money paying Walmart to employ poor people.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:28AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:28AM (#434355)

        Like fervently posting about these kind of issues on the internet whenever they come up?

        I'm not spending much time worrying about it, but whenever the opportunity comes along to voice an opinion, I care enough about this class of problem to voice my opinion.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 29 2016, @11:55AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @11:55AM (#434423) Journal
          There are genuine problems in the world. Walmart hiring poor people just doesn't make the cut, especially when that's a thing you want.
          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 29 2016, @12:45PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @12:45PM (#434431)

            Why?

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:23PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:23PM (#434493) Journal
              First, it's not actually a problem. No one has actually pointed to a negative consequence of the current situation.

              Further, we want poor people employed. Walmart does that. Even if we suppose these social programs act as a subsidy for Walmart, we still have that the subsidy encourages Walmart to do stuff we want them to do.