Business groups “blindsided” by Obama overtime redefinition

posted at 12:01 pm on March 13, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

“Blindsided … stunned …” These are the reactions from business groups and Republicans to yesterday’s announcement of a redefinition of overtime exemption from Barack Obama, according to The Hill. Both have been fighting the White House proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, which lost support among Democrats after the CBO estimated it would cost 500,000 jobs by 2016. This time, Obama can go it alone … sort of:

Business groups and congressional Republicans are blasting regulations President Obama will announce Thursday that could extend overtime pay to as many as 10 million workers who are now ineligible for it.

While liberals lauded the plan as putting more cash in the pockets of millions of workers, business groups warned it would damage the economy and Republicans said it was another example of executive overreach.

Trade associations already battling the White House over a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour said they were blindsided by the announcement.

“This came as a shot out of the blue,” said David French, the National Retail Federation’s senior vice president for government relations. “Just on the surface, this looks like an enormous new administrative burden.”

It’s not really executive overreach, though. Unlike the minimum wage, which is set by statute and has to be amended by Congress, the definition of overtime exemption is handled by Department of Labor regulation. However, that regulatory process takes quite a long time, and it may be months or even into next year before Labor can act on the directive from Obama. Business groups and Congress will weigh in on the proposal, and no doubt Republicans will demand a CBO analysis of the impact of this change, too.

And … what is the proposal, anyway? No one knows, and the White House isn’t saying. Right now, the exemption allows businesses to claim overtime exemption for people earning $455 a week or more (annual salary of $23,660)* just by asserting that any part of their duties is “executive” in nature. That’s a ridiculously low level, but businesses have structured their work forces on the basis of this regulation. No matter what level the White House chooses, it’s going to impact staffing decisions; the question is how bad it will get, and how many jobs end up going from full- to part-time in defense of potential unforecasted costs in smaller businesses especially. Ron Fournier reports that former Obama economic adviser Jared Bernstein wants it raised to about $51,000, which would impact five million workers, or less than 4% of the currently employed in the US.

The real problem in flat compensation, though, is the dysfunctional job-creation that exists under Obamanomics — high regulation, hikes in capital-gains tax rates, and ObamaCare. I argue in my column for The Fiscal Times that this is just another intervention that’s likely to produce a lot of unintended consequences, like the rest of the White House’s policies:

Almost all of these ills, however, and especially that of burgeoning corporate ledgers, comes from the interventions conducted by the Obama administration’s economic policies. At the end of prior recessions, the US has acted to reduce costs on investment through lower taxes and regulatory costs.

The Obama administration has piled on in both areas, especially with the added hiring costs of the Affordable Care Act and the 2012 increase in the capital-gains tax rate. Capital that might have gone into business expansion that creates jobs instead stays in corporate coffers to earn interest instead of return on risk.

In a growing economy, businesses would add staff to deal with increased demand, not increased regulation and mandates from Washington. The civilian workforce participation rate has dropped to lows not seen since the Jimmy Carter era, and chronic unemployment has made workers nearly powerless in the labor market.

In a healthy economy with robust job creation, employers would not be able to force low-income workers into exempt definitions, because those workers would find better-compensated work elsewhere. Businesses that might have hired more workers are now looking for ways to duck the costs of employer-subsidized health insurance by cutting hours to less than 30 a week.

The problem Obama claims to be solving is largely that of his own making – and this top-down change will have significant consequences as well. The White House argues that it will either force employers to pay overtime or to hire more workers to perform the work. Forcing a change of any significance through regulation now, with job creation at stagnation levels, will not inspire confidence in the necessary expanded investment to boost hiring and then compensation.

Can Obama do this on his own? Yes, within the parameters of regulatory changes at Labor, and the White House has already said it will respect that process. Should he? Republicans and the business community will have trouble defending the current definition, but this ignores the real problems of the economy – and may well aggravate them, especially if the redefinition is as sharp as Bernstein wants. It’s recutting a shrinking pie rather than figuring out how to make it larger, and it’s bound to fail in every way except perhaps politically — and even that win will be minor and short-lived.

Update: I rewrote the explanation of the current definition in order to make it more clear.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

obama is buying vote with your hard labor.

Taxpayers quit paying your taxes.

Schadenfreude on March 13, 2014 at 12:03 PM

I thought Mobility was the in thing……

Electrongod on March 13, 2014 at 12:06 PM

The “unintended consequences” are precisely obama’s intention.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 13, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Overtime means Job Lock…

Electrongod on March 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Welcome to the party pals!

cozmo on March 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Isn’t this about increasing union membership?

faraway on March 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Ed writes:

Right now, the exemption allows businesses to claim overtime exemption for people earning less than $24,000 a year just by asserting that any part of their duties is “executive” in nature.

I don’t know what this means. It would make more sense if it was “earning more than $24,000 a year”. Because this way, any minimum wage employee could be denied overtime, if they had “executive” duties.

/confused

LashRambo on March 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM

How many retro-lawsuits will this bring?

obama’s lawyers and the moochers/looters (yes lawyers are looters) will vote for the Ds?

Buying votes with your dough.

Don’t work so hard any more.

Schadenfreude on March 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Can’t wait for my Obamaraise! /

Now I’m reminded of the tax holiday in 2009 & 2010. We’re never going back there again. At least not until 2017…

22044 on March 13, 2014 at 12:19 PM

And … what is the proposal, anyway? No one knows, and the White House isn’t saying.

Misdirection. Obamacare a colossal failure that’s hamstringing the economy? Squirrel! Income inequality! Overtime!

rbj on March 13, 2014 at 12:20 PM

This is what happens when you have a Marxist as Secretary of Labor.

Overtime rules are very arcane, and there have been some huge battles over them in recent years, most notably the mortgage banking industry fighting DOL over an exemption for loan officers who tend to work very long hours for mostly commissions. The Bush DOL issued a letter in 2006 stating that commissioned loan officers are exempt from overtime. The Obama DOL rescinded that letter and now says they are not exempt. The class action bar has been circling looking for plantiffs to sue lenders that are not paying overtime to loan officers.

So yeah, this is a big deal to business. DOL doesn’t even have to propose regulations on this, it can simply issue letters declaring certain classes of employees as no longer exempt from overtime. These letters are not subject to notice and comment requirements and they do not require economic analyses. And this doesn’t benefit anyone as much as it benefits labor lawyers who will be trolling for plantiffs to sue employers.

rockmom on March 13, 2014 at 12:23 PM

From the article:

Current regulations require employers to pay overtime to salaried workers making less than $455 a week.

That’s the $24,000 a year figure Ed is referencing. But then the exemption is for those making MORE than that, not LESS than that. The article goes on to say:

It was unclear how high the weekly pay threshold might be raised.

Why raise it, except under the guise of a benevolent federal government who’s giving away free money? I mean, why not let the employer determine if an employee is performing executive functions, the so-called “salaried” employee, and then it’s up to the job applicant to decide whether or not he wants to take said job?

LashRambo on March 13, 2014 at 12:25 PM

that this is just another intervention that’s likely to produce a lot of unintended consequences, like the rest of the White House’s policies:

Or are they?

Bmore on March 13, 2014 at 12:25 PM

It’s not really executive overreach, though. Unlike the minimum wage, which is set by statute and has to be amended by Congress, the definition of overtime exemption is handled by Department of Labor regulation.

That’s what I suspected. He is putting back to the way it was before Bush.

Wigglesworth on March 13, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Spanish speaking auto play? really HA?

DanMan on March 13, 2014 at 12:26 PM

What are these Marxists up to now?

Whitey Ford on March 13, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Oops. Forgot the quote markers

It’s not really executive overreach, though. Unlike the minimum wage, which is set by statute and has to be amended by Congress, the definition of overtime exemption is handled by Department of Labor regulation.

Wigglesworth on March 13, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Isn’t this about increasing union membership?

faraway on March 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Thats a good point. If a business is a union shop and new hires have to join, cutting the work hours of one in order to hire another would add a union member.

Mimzey on March 13, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Give him credit.

He’s working hard to create a nation “in his image and likeness” and having success.

It’s insane, but he’s doing it.

FOWG1 on March 13, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Give him credit.

He’s working hard to create a nation “in his image and likeness” and having success.

It’s insane, but he’s doing it.

FOWG1 on March 13, 2014 at 12:30 PM

This is only the start folks. Many more to come before the Nov. elections.

rjoco1 on March 13, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Most US Presidents of either party have in the past given the public, business, and civic leaders throughout the country, the opportunity to review a proposed change like this, and to comment, recommend changes or exemptions, and generally work thorough the consequences to come up with a plan that will not be detrimental to the country.

Not this administration. An experienced executive would know better, but after more than 5 years in office it seems President Obama is still not experienced enough to understand the importance of this basic planning process.

Who are the idiots who hired this unqualified guy to do such an important job?

s1im on March 13, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Blindsided????

Please!! How can anyone be Blindsided by anything this Lunatic
does???

ToddPA on March 13, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Question: How easy is for a president to get rid of regulations passed on by his/her predecesor? Can a president just declare a regulation null and void? Or do they have to go to the same process that put the regulation in place to get rid of it?

ujorge on March 13, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Taxpayers quit paying your taxes.

Schadenfreude on March 13, 2014 at 12:03 PM

I appreciate where your heart is, but this isn’t good legal advice.

Rusty Nail on March 13, 2014 at 12:35 PM

I don’t know what this means. It would make more sense if it was “earning more than $24,000 a year”. Because this way, any minimum wage employee could be denied overtime, if they had “executive” duties.

/confused

LashRambo on March 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM

You’re right, he got it backwards.

Fenris on March 13, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Just nationalize all industry & businesses and get it over with already, Barry.

Full Employment! Full Union Membership! Everyone works for — and can’t be fired from — the government …

What could go wrong?

ShainS on March 13, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Question: How easy is for a president to get rid of regulations passed on by his/her predecesor? Can a president just declare a regulation null and void? Or do they have to go to the same process that put the regulation in place to get rid of it?

ujorge on March 13, 2014 at 12:35 PM

THIS Prezzy can do whatever he wants to do.
He’s totally above the law dontcha know…..
He IS the Won, the Messiah, the great and powerful Ob….

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 12:39 PM

It’s not really executive overreach, though.

Yes, it is. According to your own post it is a subversion of the regulatory process in which multiple entities are given the opportunity to weigh in.

Missy on March 13, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to perceive
the injustice done in business’ name
changing the rules as we play the game
small business first we will deceive
then Forbes 400 will believe
we’ll hobble all businesses til they’re lame
and foist on the GOP all the blame
power to the workers will conceive
monies flooding elsewhere which will relieve
our expectations of businesses which do maim
the freedoms we cherish and no longer claim

GKChesterton99 on March 13, 2014 at 12:42 PM

There is plenty to kvetch about regarding PBHO’s criminally inept handling of the economy, but I don’t see how this is one of those.

I worked for years in the private sector. I frequently put in unpaid overtime. I didn’t like it, but I did it for various reasons. Among those were meeting unreasonable deadlines or poor planning by management. I think that it would have only been right for them to have compensated me for that time.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 12:45 PM

“exempt” employees are not typically part of unions.

This is about dramatically increasing union membership.

Our side is stupid to not know this.

faraway on March 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM

obama is buying vote with your hard labor.

Taxpayers quit paying your taxes.

Schadenfreude on March 13, 2014 at 12:03 PM

You first. We’ll see if the HA appeals process works on the IRS.

slickwillie2001 on March 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Schadenfreude on March 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Great to see you again. Glad you got back in.

MisterElephant on March 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM

slickwillie2001 on March 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM

D-a-a-a-ang!

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM

If that idiot Democrat from Ohio (Tim Ryan?) who wants a $14/hour federally-mandated minimum wage, everybody who works a 40-hour week will be making over $24K

Happy Nomad on March 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Republicans and the business community will have trouble defending the current definition…

And well they should. I’ve spent years defending Republicans and a more organic marketplace. But this latest GOP push toward amnesty has really started me thinking, and what I’m thinking isn’t very complimentary of the Republican Party’s motivations at all.

Seems to me that what they’re interested in MOST is campaign contributions from business interests like the Chamber of Commerce. I know libs have been throwing that one at us for decades, but how else can we explain so many Republicans lining up for immigration “reform” which has nothing of merit to offer the country as a whole?

I honestly think they count on our knee-jerk reaction to government interference to insulate them from the consequences of bloating the labor pool with third-world citizens willing to work on the cheap. The only thing “organic” about the GOP’s influence here is the bull patties they’re shoveling at us while they’re busy manipulating the market price of our labor.

I’m with Ann Coulter.. If they’re going to do this, ramp up the min.wage to 14-15 bucks an hour.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-02-26.html
You don’t get to over-inflate the labor pool and then claim the process needs to be organic. You broke it, you bought it, right? That’s how it works in the real world. Actions come with consequences. If politicians want to manipulate the system, why not hold them to it by forcing them to fix whatever they break?

Murf76 on March 13, 2014 at 12:58 PM

If that idiot Democrat from Ohio (Tim Ryan?) who wants a $14/hour federally-mandated minimum wage, everybody who works a 40-hour week will be making over $24K

Happy Nomad on March 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Welcome to the 29 hour week.

Fenris on March 13, 2014 at 12:59 PM

THIS Prezzy can do whatever he wants to do.
He’s totally above IS the law dontcha know…..
He IS the Won, the Messiah, the great and powerful Ob….

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 12:39 PM

FIFY.

hawkeye54 on March 13, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Obamacare is reducing hours from 40 to 30 hours, so where is any overtime? Many salaried employees have a profit sharing or bonus system with their employer. This will be ignored by most businesses nest year.

Amazingoly on March 13, 2014 at 1:02 PM

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Were you forced to stay at this job?

Barred on March 13, 2014 at 1:03 PM

..I’m with Ann Coulter.. If they’re going to do this, ramp up the min.wage to 14-15 bucks an hour.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-02-26.html
You don’t get to over-inflate the labor pool and then claim the process needs to be organic. You broke it, you bought it, right? That’s how it works in the real world. Actions come with consequences. If politicians want to manipulate the system, why not hold them to it by forcing them to fix whatever they break?

Murf76 on March 13, 2014 at 12:58 PM

What I suspect would happen instead is that they’ll still work under the table for substandard wages, try to avoid taxes, and just be even harder to deport. So raising the minimum wage just makes hiring workers illegally even more likely. The real fight is immigration.

Fenris on March 13, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Barred on March 13, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Simply because my employment was voluntary does not excuse an employer who lies when they tell you that you are hired to work 40 hours a week and later demands more.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Who died and made Obama king?

ConstantineXI on March 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Ain’t Barry Grand…. Jug ears, purple lips and all. Any day now you will be summoned to the white house to wipe his azz.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on March 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM

As I have written before: C H A O S…
.
Most of the chaos seems to be embedded in ØbAmA’s bRaIn. Why should we have to suffer with a mentally unbalanced president who has a narcissistic authoritarian complex?

ExpressoBold on March 13, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Great to see you again. Glad you got back in.

MisterElephant on March 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Thank you, ME

Schadenfreude on March 13, 2014 at 1:12 PM

ConstantineXI on March 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM

The Constitution is who died.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I think that it would have only been right for them to have compensated me for that time.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 12:45 PM

.
Just as a quibble, were you paid a bonus based on some performance or profit metric? Did you receive employee stock options for which you did not have to pay money (grants by company management)?

ExpressoBold on March 13, 2014 at 1:14 PM

What will happen if this actually gets traction is that the formerly “exempt” employee will be expected to accomplish everything he/she did over a period of forty-eight or more hours a week in forty. Anything this employee cannot get done in those forty hours will be forced on other employees or just ignored. The company will not hire someone to take up the slack. Or the company might just fire the “exempt” worker and replace him/her with two part timers working 24 to 30 hours a week, thus saving itself the cost of the benefits it formerly gave the “exempt” employee, not to mention that part timers are usually paid much less than full timers. Either way, the company is not going to pay any one overtime.

catsandbooks on March 13, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Republicans and the business community will have trouble defending the current definition,

Why? The feral government shouldn’t be dictating to anyone what is considered “overtime” and what isn’t. It’s none of the feral government’s business, even if they had a clue about any of this, which they clearly don’t – and they don’t care.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 13, 2014 at 1:14 PM

I don’t know what this means. It would make more sense if it was “earning more than $24,000 a year”. Because this way, any minimum wage employee could be denied overtime, if they had “executive” duties.

/confused

LashRambo on March 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM

I’m going to rewrite that to make it more clear.

Ed Morrissey on March 13, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Why should we have to suffer with a mentally unbalanced president who has a narcissistic authoritarian complex?

What you should ask is “Who’s going to END our suffering from the actions of this pResident?”

“Bueller? Boehner?” ……..”Anyone? Anyone?”

hawkeye54 on March 13, 2014 at 1:16 PM

ExpressoBold on March 13, 2014 at 1:14 PM

In some cases. In the case of a bonus, yes, that could be considered compensation for effort above and beyond. As for options that were issued as part of my employment contract, no. Oftentimes, in fact most commonly, I got neither.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:16 PM

What I suspect would happen instead is that they’ll still work under the table for substandard wages, try to avoid taxes, and just be even harder to deport. So raising the minimum wage just makes hiring workers illegally even more likely. The real fight is immigration.

Fenris on March 13, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Illegal immigration isn’t going to go away if the ones we have already are legalized. Legalization is just added incentive. We’d end up with both. Tens of millions of newly documented and more coming in behind them.

Nope. If they do this legalization, it’s time to raise the min.wage, and substantially too.

Murf76 on March 13, 2014 at 1:17 PM

It’s like he wakes up every day and pulls some new idea out his azz, throws it out there just to disrupt, dismay and cause chaos.

He needs to be impeached. Can’t wait till the GOP takes the Senate and the House – bye bye Obama.

Key West Reader on March 13, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I worked for years in the private sector. I frequently put in unpaid overtime. I didn’t like it, but I did it for various reasons. Among those were meeting unreasonable deadlines or poor planning by management. I think that it would have only been right for them to have compensated me for that time.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Simply because my employment was voluntary does not excuse an employer who lies when they tell you that you are hired to work 40 hours a week and later demands more.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Maybe not, but you have the freedom to change jobs.
I’ve done many 60 and 70 hour work weeks with no overtime pay, but I usually (not always) got some sort of bonus and/or decent pay raise later on.
When management was dishonest or expected too much with no payback, I found another job and moved on. And in my own case, I know that EVERY incompetent or dishonest manager I’ve worked for eventually lost their job (DoD is a small world) one way or another.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Welp. There goes my myRA./

blammm on March 13, 2014 at 1:20 PM

“This came as a shot out of the blue,” said David French, the National Retail Federation’s senior vice president for government relations. “Just on the surface, this looks like an enormous new administrative burden.”

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

#8 “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

#10 “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”

Eastwood Ravine on March 13, 2014 at 1:22 PM

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Yes, I had the freedom to change jobs. However, when I took that job I turned down other opportunities. I made a commitment and I kept my word. My employer did not and I paid the price either by living with it or moving on.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Nope. If they do this legalization, it’s time to raise the min.wage, and substantially too.

Murf76 on March 13, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Why?
Have them do something else bad to us, because they did something bad to us to begin with?
I don’t get your cut off your nose to spite your face logic….

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Dear Democratic business owners and Chamber of Commerce Democratic supporters:
Karma. It’s what’s for dinner. Eat it.

Next time, read a newspaper or something before you vote. Something that’s not the New York Times, maybe.

orangemtl on March 13, 2014 at 1:25 PM

When management was dishonest or expected too much with no payback, I found another job and moved on. dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Thank you.

Barred on March 13, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Overtime or layoff, choose… said the employer to the employee… Of course low IQ incompetent Obama never thought that the employer can do this…Liberals think that employers are going to lose profit just because they are told so by the benevolent liberals…

mnjg on March 13, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Illegal immigration isn’t going to go away if the ones we have already are legalized. Legalization is just added incentive. We’d end up with both. Tens of millions of newly documented and more coming in behind them.

Nope. If they do this legalization, it’s time to raise the min.wage, and substantially too.

Murf76 on March 13, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Agree with first paragraph. But you make no reasonable argument for the second. Raising the minimum wage merely gives them more incentive to illegal immigrate. And does nothing for the unemployed Americans, actually it actively hurts unemployed Americans by encouraging inflation (nullifying the supposed wage increase) and making it harder to get a job in the first place.

Fenris on March 13, 2014 at 1:28 PM

It never occurs to these never-worked-in-the–private-sector dolts that a person’s salary may already be based on a presumption of some overtime. My employees’ are. And I boost them a little more simply for not having to track timecards.

jeanneb on March 13, 2014 at 1:29 PM

The White House argues that it will either force employers to pay overtime or to hire more workers to perform the work.

Not so. At my former employer, they will just find a way to prove the “executive” decisions (budgeting is one such example), and for those close to the “new” level, the company will simply give those employees a little raise, which will be much cheaper than either the OT or the new employees.

Also, this will end up hurting the people in those positions currently as they will be let go and fewer people will be hired at rates above the required OT rate, expected to work more hours to get the job done. So, there will be some higher individual salaries, but fewer employees working waaaaay more hours…

ladyingray on March 13, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Barred on March 13, 2014 at 1:25 PM

You make it sound as there were no injury done to the employee. That is where you are wrong.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Ed writes:

Right now, the exemption allows businesses to claim overtime exemption for people earning less than $24,000 a year just by asserting that any part of their duties is “executive” in nature.

I don’t know what this means. It would make more sense if it was “earning more than $24,000 a year”. Because this way, any minimum wage employee could be denied overtime, if they had “executive” duties.

/confused

LashRambo on March 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM

There are several different ways a position can be asserted as “executive”, one such duty is responsibility for budgeting.

It’s been a while since I had to deal with this, so I’d have to go back and look at the regs.

ladyingray on March 13, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Yes, I had the freedom to change jobs. However, when I took that job I turned down other opportunities. I made a commitment and I kept my word. My employer did not and I paid the price either by living with it or moving on.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:23 PM

If your employer doesn’t keep his word, there’s no reason for you to either.
I’ve been a DoD contractor since 1987, and in that time I’ve been with 9 different companies (not counting company buyouts and name changes). A couple of those changes were because management tried to screw me, so I left. 2 were layoffs. Several times I was recruited away by another company. In some cases, it was just a good time to move because of contracts, budgets, or other factors.

But the more rules the government sets and the more control they take over companies and the labor market – the less freedom and ability you will have to change companies when you see fit to do so. At the very least, we will have fewer options because this kind of crap from the government is driving more companies overseas.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Simply because my employment was voluntary does not excuse an employer who lies when they tell you that you are hired to work 40 hours a week and later demands more.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Isn’t it interesting how liberals are ALWAYS the ones who end up working for the worst bosses and in the worst situations?

Why, it’s like good employers stay the hell away from whiners and entitlement-mongers who complain about everything and want to use the power of government to force others to give them more money for less work.

northdallasthirty on March 13, 2014 at 1:36 PM

I’m still confused why the government should be telling an employer who he should have as a salaried employ and who should be a wage earner. And, who the heck he should be paying overtime, and how long their work-week should be before that overtime.

GWB on March 13, 2014 at 1:36 PM

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:34 PM

You make a good point. Government involvement/interference always distorts markets. However, the inefficiencies introduced need to be balanced against the interest in protecting workers from abuse.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:37 PM

northdallasthirty on March 13, 2014 at 1:36 PM

You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Either in terms of my political leanings or my employment history. But do go on.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Simply because my employment was voluntary does not excuse an employer who lies when they tell you that you are hired to work 40 hours a week and later demands more.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Were you hired as a salaried employee? If so, that’s an entirely different story.

Having been an engineer for over 35 years, my jobs have almost always been salaried positions. Technically, that means you agree to perform the tasks for a FIXED salary.

That being said, I’ve never worked for a company that hasn’t compensated for AUTHORIZED overtime due to schedule crunches, etc. They won’t pay overtime to employees wasting working hours browsing the Internet during working hours, and then putting in “overtime” to make up for goofing off all day.

As a salaried employee, I never expected (nor received) 1.5X pay for overtime. It was usually my basic ‘hourly’ rate. Sometimes it was just ‘comp time’ that I could use during the slower times.

You sound like someone who was either too slow at your work, goofed-off too much during your actual work hours, or just chose to stick with a bad employer.

Alternatively, you were a little too dumb to understand the meaning of a salaried position, or your skills weren’t marketable enough to sell to a better employer.

ZeusGoose on March 13, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Not so. At my former employer, they will just find a way to prove the “executive” decisions (budgeting is one such example), and for those close to the “new” level, the company will simply give those employees a little raise, which will be much cheaper than either the OT or the new employees.

Also, this will end up hurting the people in those positions currently as they will be let go and fewer people will be hired at rates above the required OT rate, expected to work more hours to get the job done. So, there will be some higher individual salaries, but fewer employees working waaaaay more hours…

ladyingray on March 13, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Yep.

Or, more likely, companies will just move more toward part-time for these jobs, which also carries the advantage under Obamacare of not having to provide benefits AND also generally protects you from having to pay overtime, since you never exceed forty hours a week.

The stupid black child couldn’t be more ignorant if he tried.

northdallasthirty on March 13, 2014 at 1:40 PM

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 12:45 PM

*sigh*

Your salary already built in your OT…

ladyingray on March 13, 2014 at 1:40 PM

You make it sound as there were no injury done to the employee. That is where you are wrong.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:34 PM

So now you’re going to play the victim card?
Life isn’t fair – suck it up.
As far as I’m concerned, my payback for them treating me wrong was they lost a dam good employee, and had to spend money and time looking for a replacement. There was no injury to me, in fact I typically got a pay raise by going to a different job and company.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:40 PM

I find it interesting that he wants to force businesses to pay overtime when the federal government does not pay time and a half for a large number of its employees.

jangle on March 13, 2014 at 1:40 PM

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Exactly. (Though I’ve only been with four in 13 years if you don’t count buyouts/mergers/etc.)

GWB on March 13, 2014 at 1:41 PM

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Yes, I am playing the victim card. It is a valid thing for one to do when one has been victimized.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM

You make a good point. Government involvement/interference always distorts markets. However, the inefficiencies introduced need to be balanced against the interest in protecting workers from abuse.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:37 PM

LOL.

Liberals like you always amuse the hell out of me with your utter inability to think through the consequences of your actions.

You know what “protects workers from abuse”? Other jobs. If you think your employer isn’t treating you fairly, you have the absolute capability to leave and find another job elsewhere.

However, since you are lazy and don’t have the necessary talents or will to do so, your solution is to use government to force your employer to pay more for your substandard work.

And the more you force employers to pay for substandard work, the more it costs to produce your product and the less competitive you are.

And the less competitive you are, the more likely it is you’ll be driven out of business by someone who IS doing a better job, which means FEWER jobs and FEWER opportunities for everyone.

You are a Julia who needs government to do everything for you. That makes you a worthless liberal.

northdallasthirty on March 13, 2014 at 1:44 PM

You make a good point. Government involvement/interference always distorts markets. However, the inefficiencies introduced need to be balanced against the interest in protecting workers from abuse.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:37 PM

There’s a difference between abuse and not getting rewarded sufficiently (in your view). If there’s real abuse, you can always go to court and at the least get a settlement of some kind.
But if you accept a salaried position, you accept the possibility of working more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay – as ladyingray just said – that’s built into your salary.
But the government should not be involved in telling companies how much bonus they should give salaried personnel for the work they do.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Or, more likely, companies will just move more toward part-time for these jobs, which also carries the advantage under Obamacare of not having to provide benefits AND also generally protects you from having to pay overtime, since you never exceed forty hours a week.

The stupid black child couldn’t be more ignorant if he tried.

northdallasthirty on March 13, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Agreed.

ladyingray on March 13, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Dow tumbles 200 pts.

Schadenfreude on March 13, 2014 at 1:49 PM

As much as I might disagree with MJBrutus’ position, some of y’all need to stop with the ad hominems. It really doesn’t make you look smart or wise. Do it like dent is doing it.

GWB on March 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM

There’s a difference between abuse and not getting rewarded sufficiently (in your view). If there’s real abuse, you can always go to court and at the least get a settlement of some kind.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:45 PM

One can only prevail in court when the law is on one’s side. That is why we need laws to protect from this kind of abuse.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM

More will be hired into the “exempt” category.

NO overtime.

Schadenfreude on March 13, 2014 at 1:52 PM

That is why we need laws to protect from this kind of abuse.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM

And the rest of us are saying that what you describe is not abuse. There are other laws related to actual abuse. What you are describing sounds an awful lot like “it’s not fair!” rather than actual abuse.

GWB on March 13, 2014 at 1:52 PM

There’s a difference between abuse and not getting rewarded sufficiently (in your view). If there’s real abuse, you can always go to court and at the least get a settlement of some kind.
But if you accept a salaried position, you accept the possibility of working more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay – as ladyingray just said – that’s built into your salary.
But the government should not be involved in telling companies how much bonus they should give salaried personnel for the work they do.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Also, the implication for salaried positions is that you work forty hours a week whether you actually work forty hours or not.

Which means that, if you decide to leave a few hours early on Friday because all your work is done and you want an early start on the weekend, you don’t get docked pay.

Hourly employees, however, are only paid for the amount of time they work, period. If you want to be hourly, that’s fine; I can easily ensure that you never work enough hours to qualify for overtime, and I’ll be happy to pay you only for the time that you actually work and not a second more.

This is why these types of plays only work on Julias like MJBrutus and other low-information voters.

northdallasthirty on March 13, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Yes, I am playing the victim card. It is a valid thing for one to do when one has been victimized.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Define victimized.

The last company I left, I was hired as a business development manager with a base salary and a detailed structure of bonuses and sales commissions. My first year I brought in double their specified revenue “goal” and I got some good bonuses and commission money. So for year 2, the owners took my actual year 1 revenue total and doubled that for my new “goal” – and stretched out the bonuses and commissions under that goal. So in year 2 when I ONLY bought in just under the doubled goal value, I actually took home far less money for myself. Then for year 3 they eliminated my commissions entirely – so I was gone (into the job I have now) by halfway into year 3 – gave them a 1 week notice when I got the job offer for where I am now.

Is that what you would define as “victimized”?
I see it as just a crappy company that’s not worth working for – and make sure other people know about it so they have trouble finding a replacement.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:54 PM

First Course
American Osetra Caviar
Fingerling Potato Velouté, Quail Eggs, Crisped Chive Potatoes

Second Course
“The Winter Garden Salad”
Petite Mixed Radish, Baby Carrots, Merlot Lettuce
Red Wine Vinaigrette

Main Course
Dry-aged Rib Eye Beef
Jasper Hill Farm Blue Cheese, Charred Shallots, Oyster
Mushrooms, Braised Chard

Dessert
Hawaiian Chocolate-Malted Ganache
Vanilla Ice Cream and Tangerines

White House State Dinner Feb 11 2014

Just Shut up your Mouth!

can_con on March 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:38 PM

I posted a few comments on yesterday’s post which dentarthurdent was there. I think this is a good move. He is working to remove exemptions. I’d like it if he just did away with exempt laws all together, but you might have different thoughts on that.

ArkyDore on March 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Coming soon, the Obamaconomy

Viator on March 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM

can_con on March 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM

D’oh, wrong thread. NVM

can_con on March 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM

If a business can figure out how to limit over-time wages under current rules, they will figure out a way to limit over-time wages with these new rules. I can think of two ways off the top of my head.

With that said, it would be nice to spend all my time on product development and sales instead of legal and accounting issues. Half my time is running the business of the business instead of just running the business. Said statement, is that I am used to it.

HonestLib on March 13, 2014 at 1:57 PM

One can only prevail in court when the law is on one’s side. That is why we need laws to protect from this kind of abuse.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM

There are already far too many laws on the employee’s side. We don’t need any more.

dentarthurdent on March 13, 2014 at 1:57 PM

I argue … that this is just another intervention that’s likely to produce a lot of unintended consequences, like the rest of the White House’s policies

What evidence do you have that those consequences are unintended?

Once is accident.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action.

Socratease on March 13, 2014 at 1:57 PM

One can only prevail in court when the law is on one’s side. That is why we need laws to protect from this kind of abuse.

MJBrutus on March 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Next up come laws that ban the practice of requiring employees to show up on time and record their hours, since MJBrutus screams that’s “abuse”.

The meter always moves. Everything that MJBrutus and his ilk don’t like they have to ban. Government is the only solution they have for everything. Poison as food, poison as antidote.

northdallasthirty on March 13, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Jobs can also be classified as exempt because they are technical or professional. Does this change affect those jobs?

Techster64 on March 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3