The Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660

[Socialist]

About damn time Labor gets another possible victory.

The Obama administration is on the verge of possibly doubling the salary levels that would require employers to pay overtime in the most ambitious government intervention on wages in a decade. And it doesn’t need Congress’s permission.

As early as this week, the Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660 – to as much as $52,000, extending time and a half overtime pay to millions of American workers. The rule has already come under fire from business and Republican opponents who say it will kill jobs and force employers to cut hours for salaried employees.

Story Continued Below


“The minimum wage they can’t do,” said Bill Samuel, director of legislative affairs for the AFL-CIO. “This is probably the most significant step they can take to raise wages for millions of workers.”

Congressional Republicans are gearing up for a major battle against raising the overtime threshold. The House Education and the Workforce subcommittee will devote much of a scheduled June 10 hearing on federal wage and hour standards to the overtime rule, even if it isn’t yet released. Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, said the rule—sight unseen—“seems engineered to make it as unappealing as possible to be an employer creating jobs in this country.”


POLITICO PRO

Full coverage of labor and employment policy
The business lobby, which is currently battling in two court venues what it calls the National Labor Relations Board’s “ambush elections rule” streamlining union elections, is likely to devote at least as many resources to fight the overtime rule. Randel Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the Chamber of Commerce, warned Labor Secretary Tom Perez in a Feb. 11 letter that any changes to existing overtime rules “threaten to upend years of settled law, create tremendous confusion, and have a significantly disruptive effect on millions of workplaces.”

By law, any salaried worker who earns below a threshold set by the Labor Department must receive overtime. The current threshold of $23,660 lies below the poverty line for a family four. The proposed rule is expected to raise that to somewhere between $45,000 and $52,000—closer to the median household income—greatly expanding the pool of Americans who qualify for overtime pay.

The overtime threshold is not indexed to inflation and has been updated only once since 1975. It covers 12 percent of salaried workers. Boosting the threshold to $50,440 would bring it back in line with the 1975 threshold, after inflation. By one estimate that would give somewhere between five to ten million workers a raise.



Read more: Barack Obama poised to hike wages for millions - POLITICO

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you really think this is going to make a difference, other than giving petulant disgruntled former employees grounds to lose in court and cost the company alot of money in the meantime?

Part of the fundamental concept of a salaried job is that you are being paid by the hour. You're expected to work an average amount of time, but it might be a little less one week, a little more another week. Maybe it'll be alot more another week. But shit has to get done. When you're paid salary, you're not being paid for time so much, you're being paid to get the job done. How do you propose to define overtime in such a circumstance? While some positions may have some kind of monthly tracking system, most of the time that simply complicates things.

The only reason for having a minimum threshold is to simply prevent salary abuse for low level jobs. And honestly, the natural market already does that sufficiently. Why would a business want to pay a flat salary to a low level position that should rightfully be paid hourly, and open themselves up to the substantial risk that the employee will fail to put in the necessary time, when the nature of the position is much more reliant on putting in time.

This is a pointless proposal. Ultimately it is unenforceable. Even if it was, there is no extant problem it proposes to solve.

 

[Socialist]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you really think this is going to make a difference, other than giving petulant disgruntled former employees grounds to lose in court and cost the company alot of money in the meantime?

Part of the fundamental concept of a salaried job is that you are being paid by the hour. You're expected to work an average amount of time, but it might be a little less one week, a little more another week. Maybe it'll be alot more another week. But shit has to get done. When you're paid salary, you're not being paid for time so much, you're being paid to get the job done. How do you propose to define overtime in such a circumstance? While some positions may have some kind of monthly tracking system, most of the time that simply complicates things.

The only reason for having a minimum threshold is to simply prevent salary abuse for low level jobs. And honestly, the natural market already does that sufficiently. Why would a business want to pay a flat salary to a low level position that should rightfully be paid hourly, and open themselves up to the substantial risk that the employee will fail to put in the necessary time, when the nature of the position is much more reliant on putting in time.

This is a pointless proposal. Ultimately it is unenforceable. Even if it was, there is no extant problem it proposes to solve.

Did you even read what this does?
"As early as this week, the Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660 – to as much as $52,000, extending time and a half overtime pay to millions of American workers."
I've heard it all before:

 

[Socialist]

"The overtime threshold is not indexed to inflation and has been updated only once since 1975. It covers 12 percent of salaried workers. Boosting the threshold to $50,440 would bring it back in line with the 1975 threshold, after inflation. By one estimate that would give somewhere between five to ten million workers a raise."

 

[SwimExpert]

Did you even read what this does?

Yes, I did. It gives liberal idiots like you a woody, and then leaves the party with the rich prep with a flashy car.

 

[Socialist]

Did you even read what this does?

Yes, I did. It gives liberal idiots like you a woody, and then leaves the party with the rich prep with a flashy car.

Refer to my cartoon. Then again, you're fear mongering and against anything that benefits laborers, so it's no surprise.
"Child labor laws give you damn liberals a woody, businesses will suffer."

 

[SwimExpert]

Refer to my cartoon.

Trust me, I refer everything you say to cartoons.

 

[Socialist]

Refer to my cartoon.

Trust me, I refer everything you say to cartoons.

Your entire argument was baseless, goes against reality, could have been made to argue against child labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime pay in general, safety laws.. We've been through this hurdle before.

Not my fault if you can't accept reality.

 

[SwimExpert]

Your entire argument was baseless, goes against reality, could have been made to argue against child labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime pay in general, safety laws.

What the hell are you talking about? This has nothing to do with child labor laws, etc. You're the one who has never held a job outside of your week at McDonalds sophomore year before you got fired for forgetting to offer fries with each order. What do you know about the real world?

This whole thing is nothing but populist fluff. There is no problem that exists in the first place for this proposal to fix. The only thing it is going to do is give disgruntled former employees ammunition to file a lawsuit that will cost employers alot of money before it gets thrown out of court.

 

[Socialist]

Your entire argument was baseless, goes against reality, could have been made to argue against child labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime pay in general, safety laws.

What the hell are you talking about? This has nothing to do with child labor laws, etc. You're the one who has never held a job outside of your week at McDonalds sophomore year before you got fired for forgetting to offer fries with each order. What do you know about the real world?

This whole thing is nothing but populist fluff. There is no problem that exists in the first place for this proposal to fix. The only thing it is going to do is give disgruntled former employees ammunition to file a lawsuit that will cost employers alot of money before it gets thrown out of court.

Oh, so you claim to know all about me and want to resort to attacking my personal life that you've fabricated? Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, you clearly don't understand what this actually is, then again, anything that benefits labor these days is hated by right wingers, and I can't figure out why..

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh, so you claim to know all about me and want to resort to attacking my personal life that you've fabricated? Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, you clearly don't understand what this actually is, then again, anything that benefits labor these days is hated by right wingers, and I can't figure out why..

I know the ass you have made yourself out to be in your short time here. I know exactly what this is. It's pointless, that's what it is. Let's go, let's do it. Let's raise the threshold to $45000 a year. What then?

Let's go ahead and put someone on salary for $32,000 a year. Let's go ahead and given them a written job offer for a position requiring 50-55 hours a week at $32,000 a year. They're still making $32,000 a year.

 

[Socialist]

Oh, so you claim to know all about me and want to resort to attacking my personal life that you've fabricated? Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, you clearly don't understand what this actually is, then again, anything that benefits labor these days is hated by right wingers, and I can't figure out why..

I know the ass you have made yourself out to be in your short time here. I know exactly what this is. It's pointless, that's what it is. Let's go, let's do it. Let's raise the threshold to $45000 a year. What then?

Let's go ahead and put someone on salary for $32,000 a year. Let's go ahead and given them a written job offer for a position requiring 50-55 hours a week at $32,000 a year. They're still making $32,000 a year.

I don't think laborers would agree with that sweet cheeks, since we actually have some labor representation here, plus, we already have overtime laws. Sounds like more corporate whining.

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't think laborers would agree with that sweet cheeks, since we actually have some labor representation here, plus, we already have overtime laws. Sounds like more corporate whining.

People agree to it every single day. You would know this if you had some actual experience in the adult world.

 

[Socialist]

I don't think laborers would agree with that sweet cheeks, since we actually have some labor representation here, plus, we already have overtime laws. Sounds like more corporate whining.

People agree to it every single day. You would know this if you had some actual experience in the adult world.

Some may agree to it, yes, but the majority of salaried laborers? Hell no. Plus, your apocalyptic dream never came to pass when overtime was brought forth. Then again, if you lived when they were proposing the minimum wage, you'd be fighting against it.. Keep going down the personal attack line once you realize you're a corporate apologist, and a shitty one at that.

 

[SwimExpert]

Some may agree to it, yes, but the majority of salaried laborers? Hell no.

You haven't answered the question. What then?

Plus, your apocalyptic dream never came to pass when overtime was brought forth.

Saying that nothing will change is an apocalyptic dream?

Then again, if you lived when they were proposing the minimum wage, you'd be fighting against it.

Distraction will get you nowhere.

Keep going down the personal attack line once you realize you're a corporate apologist, and a shitty one at that.

If the shoe fits, where it. Maybe you should stop fitting into clown shoes.

 

[Socialist]

Some may agree to it, yes, but the majority of salaried laborers? Hell no.

You haven't answered the question. What then?

Plus, your apocalyptic dream never came to pass when overtime was brought forth.

Saying that nothing will change is an apocalyptic dream?

Then again, if you lived when they were proposing the minimum wage, you'd be fighting against it.

Distraction will get you nowhere.

Keep going down the personal attack line once you realize you're a corporate apologist, and a shitty one at that.

If the shoe fits, where it. Maybe you should stop fitting into clown shoes.

Keep pushing your silly narrative, and by "apocalyptic dream" I refer to your position on most salary workers affected by this suddenly working 50-55 hours a week, and the lawsuit hogwash. Keep up the personal stuff, it's all you have.

 

[SwimExpert]

Some may agree to it, yes, but the majority of salaried laborers? Hell no.

You haven't answered the question. What then?

Plus, your apocalyptic dream never came to pass when overtime was brought forth.

Saying that nothing will change is an apocalyptic dream?

Then again, if you lived when they were proposing the minimum wage, you'd be fighting against it.

Distraction will get you nowhere.

Keep going down the personal attack line once you realize you're a corporate apologist, and a shitty one at that.

If the shoe fits, where it. Maybe you should stop fitting into clown shoes.

Keep pushing your silly narrative, and by "apocalyptic dream" I refer to your position on most salary workers affected by this suddenly working 50-55 hours a week, and the lawsuit hogwash. Keep up the personal stuff, it's all you have.

And you still can't provide an answer. Just ramble on, and on, and on, and on....

 

[Judicial review]

There's no such thing as overtime when self-employed.

 

[hipeter924]

About damn time Labor gets another possible victory.

The Obama administration is on the verge of possibly doubling the salary levels that would require employers to pay overtime in the most ambitious government intervention on wages in a decade. And it doesn’t need Congress’s permission.

As early as this week, the Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660 – to as much as $52,000, extending time and a half overtime pay to millions of American workers. The rule has already come under fire from business and Republican opponents who say it will kill jobs and force employers to cut hours for salaried employees.

Story Continued Below


“The minimum wage they can’t do,” said Bill Samuel, director of legislative affairs for the AFL-CIO. “This is probably the most significant step they can take to raise wages for millions of workers.”

Congressional Republicans are gearing up for a major battle against raising the overtime threshold. The House Education and the Workforce subcommittee will devote much of a scheduled June 10 hearing on federal wage and hour standards to the overtime rule, even if it isn’t yet released. Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, said the rule—sight unseen—“seems engineered to make it as unappealing as possible to be an employer creating jobs in this country.”


POLITICO PRO

Full coverage of labor and employment policy
The business lobby, which is currently battling in two court venues what it calls the National Labor Relations Board’s “ambush elections rule” streamlining union elections, is likely to devote at least as many resources to fight the overtime rule. Randel Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the Chamber of Commerce, warned Labor Secretary Tom Perez in a Feb. 11 letter that any changes to existing overtime rules “threaten to upend years of settled law, create tremendous confusion, and have a significantly disruptive effect on millions of workplaces.”

By law, any salaried worker who earns below a threshold set by the Labor Department must receive overtime. The current threshold of $23,660 lies below the poverty line for a family four. The proposed rule is expected to raise that to somewhere between $45,000 and $52,000—closer to the median household income—greatly expanding the pool of Americans who qualify for overtime pay.

The overtime threshold is not indexed to inflation and has been updated only once since 1975. It covers 12 percent of salaried workers. Boosting the threshold to $50,440 would bring it back in line with the 1975 threshold, after inflation. By one estimate that would give somewhere between five to ten million workers a raise.



Read more: Barack Obama poised to hike wages for millions - POLITICO

When the TPP passes, a lot of people probably won't have jobs, thanks to the Obama administration. Doubt very much that they will thank it, just because a threshold was increased on a job they lost.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you really think this is going to make a difference, other than giving petulant disgruntled former employees grounds to lose in court and cost the company alot of money in the meantime?

Part of the fundamental concept of a salaried job is that you are being paid by the hour. You're expected to work an average amount of time, but it might be a little less one week, a little more another week. Maybe it'll be alot more another week. But shit has to get done. When you're paid salary, you're not being paid for time so much, you're being paid to get the job done. How do you propose to define overtime in such a circumstance? While some positions may have some kind of monthly tracking system, most of the time that simply complicates things.

The only reason for having a minimum threshold is to simply prevent salary abuse for low level jobs. And honestly, the natural market already does that sufficiently. Why would a business want to pay a flat salary to a low level position that should rightfully be paid hourly, and open themselves up to the substantial risk that the employee will fail to put in the necessary time, when the nature of the position is much more reliant on putting in time.

This is a pointless proposal. Ultimately it is unenforceable. Even if it was, there is no extant problem it proposes to solve.

Did you even read what this does?
"As early as this week, the Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660 – to as much as $52,000, extending time and a half overtime pay to millions of American workers."
I've heard it all before:

Obama and you are Fucking stupid if you think they will get more money, employers will just put them on hourly and cut the rate. It will work out the same in the end.