DGS49
Diamond Member
“Under the new regulation…most salaried workers earning up to $47,476 a year must receive time-and-a-half overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours during a week. The previous cutoff for overtime pay, set in 2004, was $23,660.”
The presumption is that there are "millions" of people working in the private sector who are employed in positions defined by their employers as "management," which designation is near-fraudulent, and is only done in order to allow the employer to force such workers to work excess hours without paying them what they are "entitled" to. Changing this regulatory standard will magically - AT NO COST - put billions of dollars into these "supervisors'" pockets and stimulate the hell out of the economy.
Exhibit A might be a shift supervisor at a fast food restaurant, making $30k, and working, let's say, near 50 hours per week, on average. (For reference, let us note that an hourly employee making $10 per hour and working 10 hours of overtime every week would earn $28,600 per year, including O/T compensation).
To those who have actually had a Real Job in the private sector (unlike the politicians and bureaucrats who conceived and drafted this change), it is axiomatic that Exhibit A came into being because the following events took place: The Employee was offered a job or a promotion; the compensation and requirements were fully explained to her, and considering all of the options she may have had otherwise (remaining in their previous hourly position, finding a better job, remaining unemployed), she chose to take the position because, all things considered, it was the best option for her at that time in her life.
Furthermore, if after taking the position she found it intolerable, she was always free to (a) try to negotiate a better salary or working arrangements, (b) find a better job, or (c) quit, she nevertheless chose to remain in the position, week after week. The fact that she remains in that position is an indication that the position still is, all things considered, the best option for her.
At the same time, the Employer, needing to fill the shift-supervisor position, could have promoted someone else, hired someone else from outside, or somehow done a work-around so that the position could remain vacant. But the employer chose to hire or promote the incumbent, based on her abilities and the fact that she was willing to work 50 hours per week for that salary.
And now the Government comes in, with no legislative, constitutional, regulatory, or moral right to do so, and imposes an "overtime" payment obligation ON THE EMPLOYER, which could cost the Employer approximately $11,250/yr, plus payroll taxes and income based benefits - assuming the Employer calculates her hourly rate based on $30k/2080hrs/yr.
But given the fact that she is an "employee at will" (no contract of employment), the employer may very well - and quite legally - REDUCE her hourly rate so that she continues to earn $30k/yr even with the annual 520 hours of overtime compensation at time-and-a-half. Indeed, this would be the proper thing to do, given that the employee has explicitly agreed to work 50 hours per week in exchange for annual compensation of $30k.
Most rational employers will do some variation of (a) change the positions to "hourly," and (b) reduce the hourly compensation rate, so that (c) the cost of the position will remain the same.
But obviously, this is not what the O'Bamistas want. No, they want to see millions of people having their compensation increase significantly, and being eternally grateful to the O'Bamistas, while stimulating the hell out of the economy at the same time.
But as with all Lefty initiatives, they never consider (or tell us) where all of this "extra" money will come from. Out of the employer's "obscene profits"? Out of the customers' pockets?
What remains is the question of, how taking money out of the employer's and customers' pockets and putting it into selected employees' pockets "stimulates the economy." It is a mystery to me.
Ultimately, we have yet another case of the O'Bama Administration trampling on our Constitutional right to enter into legal contracts without interference from Government. Abolish the Minimum Wage, anyone?
The presumption is that there are "millions" of people working in the private sector who are employed in positions defined by their employers as "management," which designation is near-fraudulent, and is only done in order to allow the employer to force such workers to work excess hours without paying them what they are "entitled" to. Changing this regulatory standard will magically - AT NO COST - put billions of dollars into these "supervisors'" pockets and stimulate the hell out of the economy.
Exhibit A might be a shift supervisor at a fast food restaurant, making $30k, and working, let's say, near 50 hours per week, on average. (For reference, let us note that an hourly employee making $10 per hour and working 10 hours of overtime every week would earn $28,600 per year, including O/T compensation).
To those who have actually had a Real Job in the private sector (unlike the politicians and bureaucrats who conceived and drafted this change), it is axiomatic that Exhibit A came into being because the following events took place: The Employee was offered a job or a promotion; the compensation and requirements were fully explained to her, and considering all of the options she may have had otherwise (remaining in their previous hourly position, finding a better job, remaining unemployed), she chose to take the position because, all things considered, it was the best option for her at that time in her life.
Furthermore, if after taking the position she found it intolerable, she was always free to (a) try to negotiate a better salary or working arrangements, (b) find a better job, or (c) quit, she nevertheless chose to remain in the position, week after week. The fact that she remains in that position is an indication that the position still is, all things considered, the best option for her.
At the same time, the Employer, needing to fill the shift-supervisor position, could have promoted someone else, hired someone else from outside, or somehow done a work-around so that the position could remain vacant. But the employer chose to hire or promote the incumbent, based on her abilities and the fact that she was willing to work 50 hours per week for that salary.
And now the Government comes in, with no legislative, constitutional, regulatory, or moral right to do so, and imposes an "overtime" payment obligation ON THE EMPLOYER, which could cost the Employer approximately $11,250/yr, plus payroll taxes and income based benefits - assuming the Employer calculates her hourly rate based on $30k/2080hrs/yr.
But given the fact that she is an "employee at will" (no contract of employment), the employer may very well - and quite legally - REDUCE her hourly rate so that she continues to earn $30k/yr even with the annual 520 hours of overtime compensation at time-and-a-half. Indeed, this would be the proper thing to do, given that the employee has explicitly agreed to work 50 hours per week in exchange for annual compensation of $30k.
Most rational employers will do some variation of (a) change the positions to "hourly," and (b) reduce the hourly compensation rate, so that (c) the cost of the position will remain the same.
But obviously, this is not what the O'Bamistas want. No, they want to see millions of people having their compensation increase significantly, and being eternally grateful to the O'Bamistas, while stimulating the hell out of the economy at the same time.
But as with all Lefty initiatives, they never consider (or tell us) where all of this "extra" money will come from. Out of the employer's "obscene profits"? Out of the customers' pockets?
What remains is the question of, how taking money out of the employer's and customers' pockets and putting it into selected employees' pockets "stimulates the economy." It is a mystery to me.
Ultimately, we have yet another case of the O'Bama Administration trampling on our Constitutional right to enter into legal contracts without interference from Government. Abolish the Minimum Wage, anyone?
