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: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Monday November 28 2016, @11:23PM
The good: As always, the (supposed) intentions are pure: Pay people for the hours that they work.
This is the way every one imagines it to be, whether it is the reality or not.
The bad: This law effectively restricts the freedom for people and employers to agree to an employment contract. Specifically, full-time employees earning less thatn $47476 must be paid hourly overtime for any extra hours worked. In the cases I am familiar with, this effectively turns people who are lower-level managers back into hourly employees. Someone you want to groom for more responsibility, and who is probably proud of it, is suddenly back to punching a time-clock.
This is the fantasy we are fed. The reality is that "employment contracts" mean nothing once you are on the job. Hotels for instance, love to pay for lower level managers in departments who get a lot of responsibility and yes, they work hard too! But come a slowdown, and suddenly not only are they doing their manager jobs but the upper level management is insisting that payroll be cut for hourly workers, leaving those lower level managers working the jobs of hourly workers in addition to their own. Figure out their pay per hour and suddenly that proud responsibility does not seem so nice. The hourly workers as a result often depend on food stamps and/or other government assistance, essentially meaning that taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of these businesses.
The ugly: The advocates are simply clueless. "When employers pay a fair wage, they benefit from more productive, loyal, and motivated employees." Guess what, money doesn't magically come out of a spigot. Lots of SMEs in "in the American Heartland" are operating on tight budgets. Higher labor costs mean higher prices, lost jobs, or even a bankrupt business.
The reason the SME's struggle is not because they pay a fair wage. They will get a return on that. They struggle because they are competing against large corporations that can take advantage of such lack of overtime and minimum wage rules on a large scale, allowing them to cut prices below that of the SME's and letting the taxpayers fund the difference in supporting their workers. Eliminate that advantage, and suddenly the SME's have a much more favorable position.