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: 2) by VLM on Monday November 28 2016, @08:44PM
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
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
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
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
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]