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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:16PM
I'm sorry, what did you expect to "change?" It sound like the change you expect is a change in human nature - that all people everywhere will suddenly become altruistic and charitable. Or that people upon receiving free handouts will put it into its proper perspective and then want to do things for themselves. Which is a noble sentiment and idea, and does in fact occur in some cases. But not nearly all.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the wealth distribution in this country is such that NO human being in this country needs to live below the poverty line. The numbers say this is not the way it has to be. Yet many do live below the poverty line. No human being in this country should have to worry - EVER - about having basic shelter from weather, a bed to sleep in, food to eat, and clothes on backs. Because the resources exist to make sure this never happens. Yet they do.
I very much respect the service you put in for that many years trying to assist others. But yes, if you did it from the motive that people deserve that based on who they are, and not what they are (a human being,) then you set yourself up for disappointment.
When it comes to the most basic elements: Food, shelter, clothing, there is no excuse for not allocating enough resources to make sure nobody goes without these things. In the United States, at this time, when it comes to basic needs, fuck the Pareto Principle.