While the details haven't been released yet, the president is expected to raise a weekly wage threshold that determines whether an employee who is on salary can get overtime. The move would affect workers such as fast-food or convenience store managers, who aren't highly compensated but are treated as exempt from overtime.
Currently, the Department of Labor says salaried workers are exempt from overtime if they earn more than $580 per week, which is twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. That's an annual salary of $30,160. Obama is expected to increase that threshold, opening the door for more managerial-type workers to get overtime.
It's unclear whether the measure will have a large impact in California, where a salaried worker is exempt from overtime if they earn more than $640 per week, or twice the state minimum wage of $8 per hour. Many fast-food managers in San Diego already don't make enough to be exempt from overtime, earning a median $13.87 per hour, or $584 per week, the state Employment Development Department reports.
Also, in California, the qualifying threshold to be exempt from overtime will increase twice in the next two years. READ MORE
***
From the Weekly Standard.
"At a Democratic fundraiser last night (Tuesday night) in New York City, President Obama said, "I hope you will all step up because, although I'm very optimistic about our long-term trends, the notion that we would waste two years in further inaction rather than move boldly on a path that I think all of us in this room agree on -- we don't have time to waste."
"The president continued, "I don't have time to waste. The clock is ticking. There’s less than two years left -- less than three years left."
17 comments:
This will exacerbate another problem: armies of part-timers, limited to less than 29 hr/week because of ACA rules, will watch over-worked managers and full-timers suck up even more hours.
This guy is against work. And anybody but him and his cronies making money.
And he can't subtract, ither.
When I started working for the company I would eventually own I started at $7 per hour which was about 1/2 of what I made at the job I had previously. The first thing I asked of my new boss after my first week was for him to let me work for free after my regular hours were done. I usually worked 7am till 11pm and often on weekends too, but only got paid for 40 hours. This was what I wanted, and it probably is one of the key reason for my success.
He had to break the law to let me do that, but I'm glad he did. Today my employees often ask me if they can work extra hours for free or just regular time, but I don't let them. Times are different and lawyers are constantly stalking for such people who they then talk into suing. I probably have to explain to at least one person every month how their government doesn't allow us to make that deal. The employee usually wants it much more than the employer, especially so they can have flexible work schedules that helps them plan their time off better.
Still, my highest paid employees today are people who over the years just ignored me and worked extras at home without telling me. The results were obvious, and they got rewarded in the long run.
Having a nanny is not for adults and stunts your growth.
So manager-level people will need to find 2 jobs now, being limited to less than whatever the stupid red line is that Obama draws.
What an evil asshole.
Obama the job killer.
But his intentions are good!
Obama has no time to lose: he's got to get back to the links in Florida as fast as he can!
The good news in all this is that we know the President doesn't do OT, so we won't have to pay him time and a half.
As has been stated above this is just going to make people go off the grid. Companies will reduce hours down to part time to avoid Obamacare and now these new overtime rules. Why is it necessary for the government to dictate to the small businessman how to run his shop?
Because Obama!
Please ignore the myriad of negative consequences made my the economically inept feel-good nanny statists.
It's almost like he wants to send more jobs to China to help prop up the weakening Chinese economy.
As someone in the manufacturing business, in my opinion, most everything Obama has done encourages companies to move jobs offshore if they can. Nothing he does helps keep them here.
Alternatively, employers like me are looking for ways to reduce the need for people through automation, and simplification. I want to hire and train as many people as possible, because that's the main reason I'm even in business and not retired, but this administration has forced me to concentrate on protecting the jobs I have rather than creating new ones. My own government is the biggest hindrance to me creating jobs. It used to be foreign competition, but they wouldn't be much of a problem for us if our government was on our side.
Jay Kearney gave a very reasonable explanation of why nothing is done correctly by this Administration
It seems that President Obama ate the dog that ate his homework.
This one probably won't fly.
Most of Obama's rulings, while illegal, have done no *direct* harm to anybody and thus don't give anyone standing to sue. "Fucking up the insurance market" harms us all, sure, but none of us can point to a specific problem we individually face and say "THIS problem exists solely because of Obama's illegal behavior".
With this, though, lots of people and companies suffer direct financial harm. They all have standing to sue, and many will.
My sibling has worked in retail for almost 20 years. Started as a sales associate, now is a district manager for a national retail store. Makes 6 figures if all targets are met; I think base salary is probably $80K. Even as a regular store manager, was still earning $40K-- 10 years ago, which is pretty darn good for someone with a HS diploma, under 30 and no student debt.
The dumb thing about this change is that it's going to hurt small business owners. The guy who owns 2 7Elvens, not 15. If you're good at your job, good at managing and not compensated fairly, go work somewhere else. My sibling has switched companies and relocated to get what was deserved.
Revenant, I agree with your comment, except I think the problem in lawsuits against Obamacare is that the harm is just now being realized. I expect many people to start having standing, but they needed to wait for "coverage" to start.
Then again, that might just be a dream of mine.
He's not evil, he's a boy whose been given an extraordinary amount of toys to play with, entire government agencies, all their assets, half their fealty. He splashes in the bath tub.
Know how to control the damage? Long term. I saw this on parent hacks. When bathing a child put child and toys in plastic laundry basket to corral the floating toys. I thought in that instant, "Obama!"
The Executive branch.
There is too much going on there. Too many Departments for one man to fiddle with. All of them too big. They need to be corralled. Like children splashing in the bathtub.
Innit'at a great analogy? Eh?
Come on! It's like that. Children splashing in the tub. We as parents must control them and make sure they don't hurt themselves or others. The man has power to jack with the economy from his corner of it, do what his impulses lead him, we gave him that power to do this so he's doing it, just like Carter, just like Nixon, fuck with the economy directly. Without ever having studied economics. And getting a C if he did. Without a clue to econometrics, and having wrong clues if he has any, surrounded by advisors filing his adorable ears with suggestions as to how to leave his royal mark. Much like President Tut.
[This answers the question why noses are broken off ancient statues, it's not all carelessness]
Leland, lots of people are being harmed by ObamaCare, but the government is allowed to fuck people over. The courts allow that sort of thing.
What they don't allow is *breaking* the law in a way that produces tangible harm to people. The thing is, Obama's breaking the law in a way that -- in the short term, at least -- actually helps people who would otherwise be hurt by the law. The harm is abstract and delayed; claiming standing to sue is hard.
Post a Comment