Millions would be eligible for overtime under President’s proposal

Discussion in 'Stock Market Forum' started by admin, Jun 30, 2015.

  1. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    9,592
    Likes Received:
    9
    WASHINGTON (AP) — They’re called managers, and they sometimes work grueling schedules at fast food chains and retail stores. But with no overtime eligibility, their pay may be lower per hour than many workers they supervise.

    With those employees in mind, the Obama administration is proposing making up to 5 million more people eligible for overtime — its latest effort to boost pay for lower-income workers. These workers would benefit from rules requiring businesses to pay eligible employees 1½ times their regular pay for any work beyond 40 hours a week.

    “We’ve got to keep making sure hard work is rewarded,” President Barack Obama wrote in an op-ed published Monday in The Huffington Post. “That’s how America should do business. In this country, a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay.”

    Employers can now often get around the rules: Any salaried employee who’s paid more than $455 a week — or $23,660 a year — can be called a “manager,” given limited supervisory duties and made ineligible for overtime.

    Yet that would put a family of four in poverty territory. Obama says that the level is too low and undercuts the intent of the overtime law. The threshold was last updated in 2004 and has been eroded by inflation.

    The long-awaited overtime rule from the Labor Department would more than double the threshold at which employers can avoid paying overtime, to $970 a week by next year. That would mean salaried employees earning less than $50,440 a year would be assured overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week.

    To keep up with future inflation and wage growth, the proposal will peg the salary threshold at the 40th percentile of income, individuals familiar with the plan said. They requested anonymity to discuss the proposal ahead of the official announcement.

    With the higher threshold, many more Americans — from fast food and retail supervisors to bank branch managers and insurance claims adjusters — would become eligible for overtime. Other changes the administration may propose could lead more white-collar workers to claim overtime.

    A threshold of $984 a week would cover 15 million people, according to the liberal Economic Policy Institute. In 1975, overtime rules covered 65 percent of salaried workers. Today, it’s just 12 percent.

    The beneficiaries would be people like Brittany Swa, 30, a former manager of a Chipotle restaurant in Denver. As a management trainee, she started as an entry-level crew member in March 2010. After several months she began working as an “apprentice,” which required a minimum 50-hour work week.

    Yet her duties changed little. She had a key to the shop and could make bank deposits, but otherwise spent nearly all her time preparing orders and working the cash register. She frequently worked 60 hours a week but didn’t get overtime because she earned $36,000.
    The grueling hours continued after she was promoted to store manager in October 2010. She left two years later, and now processes workers’ compensation claims at Travelers. She makes $60,000 a year, “which is surprising, since I only work 40 hours a week,” she says.

    Swa has joined a class-action lawsuit against Chipotle, which charges that apprentices shouldn’t be classified as managers exempt from overtime. A spokesman for Chipotle declined to comment on the case.

    Dawn Hughey, a former store manager for Dollar General in Flint, Michigan, would have also benefited from a higher overtime threshold. Hughey worked 60 to 80 hours a week for about two years before being fired in 2011. She was paid $34,700.

    “I missed a lot of family functions working like that,” Hughey said. “It was just expected if you were a store manager.”

    She made about $45,000 a year as an hourly worker in a previous job at a Rite Aid in California, where she typically worked 48 hours a week and received overtime.

    The White House’s proposed changes will be open for public comment and could take months to finalize. They can be enacted through regulation, without approval by the Republican-led Congress.

    Yet the proposals won’t necessarily produce a big raise for people like Swa and Hughey. The National Retail Federation, a business group, says its members would probably respond by converting many salaried workers to hourly status, which could cost them benefits such as paid vacation. Other salaried workers would have their hours cut and wouldn’t receive higher pay.

    Businesses might hire additional workers to avoid paying overtime or extend the hours they give part-timers. Yet supporters of extending overtime coverage say they would welcome those changes.

    “It’s a job creation measure,” said Daniel Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas, Austin. “Employers will substitute workers for hours, when the hours get more expensive.”

    The administration’s proposal may make other changes. Right now, employees who earn more than the salary threshold can still receive overtime — unless they have managerial duties or are professionals with some discretion over their work and hours.

    That exemption, however, is granted mainly at an employer’s discretion. If a company says an employee’s primary duty is, for example, supervising others, the employer can disqualify that person from overtime.

    Obama, in his op-ed, argued the exemption was intended for highly paid, white-collar employees but now punishes lower-income workers because the government has failed to update the regulations. He said the proposal would be good not only for workers but also for employers that pay their employees what they deserve, because they will no longer be undercut by competitors who pay their workers less.

    “Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do exceptionally well? Or will we push for an economy where every American who works hard can contribute to and benefit from our success?” Obama said, setting up a populist argument that Democrats are likely to embrace in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

    Code:
    http://wbay.com/2015/06/30/millions-would-be-eligible-for-overtime-under-presidents-proposal/
     
  2. petesede

    petesede Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 2014
    Posts:
    991
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sometimes it seems like Obama had a childhood traumatic experience at McDonalds. There are about 10,000 things that are wrong with wealth destribution that are much more important than managers at McDonalds not getting paid for overtime.
     
  3. gracer

    gracer Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Apr 2015
    Posts:
    532
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also read this on Fortune yesterday.

    President Obama has called for a change in overtime regulations so that more Americans will be eligible for two-and-a-half overtime pay. If the proposed rule passes, workers on salary who make below the minimum threshold will automatically receive overtime pay if they work more than 40-hours every week. The proposed rule is also said to be a way of combating income inequality in the in the US.

    Here’s a link on the story:

    http://fortune.com/2015/06/30/obama-overtime-pay/
     
  4. My401K

    My401K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2014
    Posts:
    221
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yes I heard this on the news this morning and my first thought was that finally I might get paid for some of my extra hours. But when I really took the time to think about this I pretty much figured this was not a good thing. I get what the purpose is- there are companies that just want to call people management and give them a salary so that they can work them to death. I think that's the double edged sword, those companies will not change, what they will do is just get two people and call it something different then "management"

    What I would have preferred to see would be for Obama to address the real and ongoing problem, and that is a workforce that has to work two jobs constantly to make ends meet. It was a rut I was stuck in for year, neither job was full time so there was no benefits, yet having to work two jobs meant regular weeks of 50+ hours with no over time pay, no vacation, seldom any holidays and in the end higher taxes. If anything this plan will make this scenario more the norm. How in the long run this will help anyone is beyond me. I don't have a solution, but it would be nice if there was some sort of way that when you supply multiple w2's there was a system that could recognize or calculate what the average work week was (potentially) based on the yearly earnings. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out whats happening when someone has two w2's and only makes 30K a year. Especially if this happens every year. Why not add an additional box to the W2 that states how many hours were worked in a time period and if there is a consistent overlapping in dates work on some solution to make that playing field level instead.
     
  5. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    Just another way to stick it to businesses while getting more tax dollars from workers.

    It's been a long time since I've been in a position that was overtime eligible, but one thing I remember was that the higher pay for overtime was taxed at a significantly higher rate dollar for dollar.

    Larger businesses will adapt - layoffs, cutting hours and other expenses, etc. Smaller companies will be squeezed even more than they already are.
     
  6. SteakTartare

    SteakTartare Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Mar 2014
    Posts:
    857
    Likes Received:
    11
    Oh, for crying out loud. This president just can't stop meddling, can he? Regardless, there will be unintended consequences. Much of which will not help the economy.

    Personally, I am salaried and I work long hours. It is the reality of the industry and I knew it going in. I think that is true for a lot of working professionals.
     
  7. Thejamal

    Thejamal Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 2014
    Posts:
    166
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't understand why people get excited about proposals like this. The money has to come from somewhere and the most likely cuts come from either laying people or raising the price of goods. And companies that can't deal with the changes will just go out of business and everyone loses their job. So how did this actually help low-income workers?

    A job at McDonalds is not meant to be able to support a family of 4. And to be frank, a job at Mccdonalds should not have equal pay to skill positions. My friend recently graduated from school to be an architect and will start working on her license as an intern for $15/hour. How is it fair to her after 5 years of schooling and training to enter her field at equal pay as a fast-food worker?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. AtlantaSports

    AtlantaSports Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Feb 2015
    Posts:
    641
    Likes Received:
    2
    I understand where he is coming from and I get/appreciate what he is doing, but this really puts small business in a bind. They already have to deal with a metric crap-ton of rules, and this just adds to the pile. I appreciate it because I was once the kid who worked at a fast food restaurant and hated the pay/the position I was in.
     
  9. AtlantaSports

    AtlantaSports Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Feb 2015
    Posts:
    641
    Likes Received:
    2
    While I agree and that is true, there are still a ton of Americans who are stuck in fast food joints and they are barely getting paid enough to live on. The concept of that just sucks.
     
  10. AtlantaSports

    AtlantaSports Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Feb 2015
    Posts:
    641
    Likes Received:
    2
    Those last two sentences are ones that I completely agree with. Larger businesses, unless they get into a position where they become bankrupt, are largely unaffected by, well, anything.
     

Share This Page