WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is seeking changes in overtime rules that will make millions of workers eligible for time-and-a-half pay for their extra work. Obama intends to sign a presidential memorandum Thursday directing the Labor Department to propose rules that expand the number of employees who benefit from overtime pay. The rules would be aimed at salaried workers who make more than $455 a week and those who are ineligible for overtime because they are designated as management even though their supervisory duties are minimal. The rules do not require congressional action but could take more than a year to implement. Obama has put a focus this year on increasing worker pay, including a call for Congress to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10. He also issued an executive order requiring federal contractors to abide by the higher minimum wage. In his memorandum, Obama plans to direct the Labor Department to recommend new regulations that could increase the salary threshold for overtime eligibility and to change the definition of what constitutes a supervisor. Obama's attention to overtime dovetails with his emphasis on correcting wage disparities, a theme that he has said will be central to the remainder of his presidential term. It also serves his political ends during a midterm election year, giving him a populist issue along with his calls for a higher minimum wage and better pay for women. The salary-per-week limit separating those who get overtime and those who don't was increased to $455 in 2004 during the Bush administration. At the time, it hadn't been increased since the mid-1970s. "What we know right now is the threshold has been eroded by inflation, and there 3.1 million people who, if the threshold had kept up just with inflation, would automatically be covered by overtime provisions," said Betsey Stevenson, a member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. Business groups said any forced increase in wages has consequences that could affect employment, prices and the survival of certain companies which, they said, already have to comply with requirements of a new health care law. "Similar to minimum wage, these changes in overtime rules will fall most harshly on small- and medium-sized businesses, who are already trying to figure out the impact of Obamacare on them," said Marc Freedman, executive director of Labor Law Policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-order-strengthened-overtime-pay-071048992.html
Pretty much. I am a salaried professional. The hours may be hell, but the income is good and both my employer and I agreed to the arrangement. Neither party needs the Feds dictating a change to said agreement.
I don't really know how this works in the USA, but damn it seems complicated. Salary-per-week limits, management positions etc. Would it not be more simple in this way: You have a work contract stating 40h/week. Anything above 40h/week = overtime?
The change in overtime rules seem to be good news for some and bad news for others. Possible negative implications could be job losses, increase in selling prices and reduced profits for companies. The benefits would be a motivated work force (for at least a couple of months), increased spending by consumers and potential higher profits by retailers. The problem with a change like this is that you can not really predict the outcome on the economy.
My own mindset is of an owner - even in some positions I had where I was actually working for someone else. I'm used to working entirely or mostly off incentives - commissions / revenues / profits / bonuses, etc. Go to work early. Work efficiently and hard all day. Leave when the day's work is done. Carry business cards around everywhere and hustle up new business at the gym, the grocery store, bars & restaurants, social orgs, etc, etc. It's hard for me to think like an hourly employee. I haven't been in that position in a long, long time. And I didn't stay in that position much longer than the time it took me to get a college degree. But of course the world needs hourly workers, and luckily there is generally a good supply of them.
If someone has a signed contract then why should they suddenly make overtime. Can you imagine if baseball or basketball players - clearly they earn more that $455.00/week - started applying for overtime? This is an overstep and over reach by the government, hopefully they won't ask for overtime for gumming up Obama Care.
I am of course more interested on the subtopic of how this decision affects stock investments. I think this is a bit of a punishment for a nationally failing system of managing employees. By and large hourly wage employees are often complaining about how important their hourly wage is to them. But if an employee is working at a position 'for' the hourly wage, then he is working in that vocation for the wrong reasons (I'll explain this if someone asks). I worked in an hourly position from the age of eighteen to the age of twenty-five. I wish I could get the complainers to realize that they aren't helping themselves any by focussing on the dollar sign they are bringing home. But then again hourly workers, except for a small percentage of them, are not famous for understanding how important this is. So for the vast majority of them, it is on the management of the company to identify employees who should be working in a field that they are more passionate about, and also to properly manage the employees they have to be incented for honesty, hard work, and diligence. Any good manager will tell you that the majority of incentives do not need to be financial. Having happier employees, means better performance, lending itself to more profitable companies and a better economy.
I am a salaried worker and I would love to be able to get compensated for the extra time. I do not mind putting in a few extra hours with no addtional pay, but when it comes to the point where you are just being abused, then I think it is time for me to get a little extra.
Why exactly is this a bad thing for some people here? As Rosyrain said, this is to make sure people who do get abused by their employeers actually get the money they're owed for the time they've worked. If you're paying your employees time and a half for overtime anyway, which, you know, you do since it's overtime, then there's no problem. This is only going to effect the people who don't actually pay their employees as much as they should be.
