Obama to Change OT Rules

[hog88]

In another Congressional end around, Obama is planning on changing OT rules without going through congress. And in the end will hurt way more people than it will help.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-overtime-way-obama-proposes-072029364.html

 

[FLVOL69]

In another Congressional end around, Obama is planning on changing OT rules without going through congress. And in the end will hurt way more people than it will help.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-overtime-way-obama-proposes-072029364.html

Overtime and Obama shouldn't be in the same sentence , that ****er hasn't put in a plus forty hour week since his coronation. He went to bed during the Benghazi terror attack, helluva work ethic right there. I guess if you count golf and vacations he might qualify..

 

[lawgator1]

Ummmm ...

This is the sort of thing routinely governed by rule via the Department of Labor and is not the subject of statute.

But hey, you keep that feigned, or in this case completely made up, outrage going young man !!

 

[BearCat204]

Ummmm ...

This is the sort of thing routinely governed by rule via the Department of Labor and is not the subject of statute.

But hey, you keep that feigned, or in this case completely made up, outrage going young man !!

So ironic

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Whether it's BHO or whomever, it needs to be fixed. Simply attaching a manager label to an employee in order to screw them out of deserved compensation is just wrong. I really don't know who this would hurt. Businesses need to pay their hired help.

 

[lawgator1]

Whether it's BHO or whomever, it needs to be fixed. Simply attaching a manager label to an employee in order to screw them out of deserved compensation is just wrong. I really don't know who this would hurt. Businesses need to pay their hired help.

Oh boy. Requiring business to obey the law and to treat employees decently? To not take advantage of the poor? Not increase the bottom line, no matter who suffers or the moral indignity of it?

You fixin' to get a whuppin up in heya !!

 

[hog88]

Ummmm ...

This is the sort of thing routinely governed by rule via the Department of Labor and is not the subject of statute.

But hey, you keep that feigned, or in this case completely made up, outrage going young man !!

Ok, you are correct. It's a procedural rule change that can be done without congress. You win.

Now that that's out of the way, let's discuss the actual change in rules. Just as the article states:

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.

But now if you have a big group of employees cut from full time jobs, resulting in a loss of insurance, they can sign up for subsidized ACA.

 

[hog88]

Whether it's BHO or whomever, it needs to be fixed. Simply attaching a manager label to an employee in order to screw them out of deserved compensation is just wrong. I really don't know who this would hurt. Businesses need to pay their hired help.

Screw them out of deserved compensation? Like health insurance, vacation, sick pay, 401K and the like? You know all the stuff part time employees do not receive?

Few will actually ever receive OT pay or raises from this and many will see their wages cut and lose benefits.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Obama has no clue of what he's doing or how to run the country....period. Be glad when he's gone forever.

 

[LouderVol]

Screw them out of deserved compensation? Like health insurance, vacation, sick pay, 401K and the like? You know all the stuff part time employees do not receive?

Few will actually ever receive OT pay or raises from this and many will see their wages cut and lose benefits.

and the corporations will have to hire more people. how do you fix it? allow them to continue not paying overtime? this is something my office and profession will have to deal with. (as will most)

 

[Biopsyman]

He only getting started... The last 6 months of his term will be horrible on the pokicies that he will unleash.. Also wait to you see hhe pardons

 

[lawgator1]

Ok, you are correct. It's a procedural rule change that can be done without congress. You win.

Now that that's out of the way, let's discuss the actual change in rules. Just as the article states:



But now if you have a big group of employees cut from full time jobs, resulting in a loss of insurance, they can sign up for subsidized ACA.

So you're saying the National Retail Foundation opposes this and is claiming its a bad idea?

No.
Way.

 

[hog88]

and the corporations will have to hire more people. how do you fix it? allow them to continue not paying overtime? this is something my office and profession will have to deal with. (as will most)

Aren't most of these "management trainees" working in retail and chain restaurants without a college degree or have some worthless degree? How else, outside of working their tails off starting at the bottom would they ever hope to make it into a management position?

 

[hog88]

So you're saying the National Retail Foundation opposes this and is claiming its a bad idea?

No.
Way.

I credited you with being correct that this isn't a congressional end around, how about you discuss the merits of the rule?

 

[theFallGuy]

Whether it's BHO or whomever, it needs to be fixed. Simply attaching a manager label to an employee in order to screw them out of deserved compensation is just wrong. I really don't know who this would hurt. Businesses need to pay their hired help.

Because government labor rules always work. k:

 

[lawgator1]

I credited you with being correct that this isn't a congressional end around, how about you discuss the merits of the rule?

If business changes these "salaried" "managers" to hourly so as to avoid this change in regulations, then if they work overtime they end up getting time and a half, right?

And you really believe that this practice, which has clearly been designed to bypass overtime laws by these businesses, carried with it any meaningful benefits?

Come on, that makes no sense. I am quite certain that the math used to decide what to label these employees was not upside down in favor of the employees via benefits. If it were, then the National Retail Federation would support this, right, because their members would save money.

 

[BearCat204]

Will be interesting to see the reaction from businesses. I would guess that many will have their benefits cut and hours.

 

[hog88]

If business changes these "salaried" "managers" to hourly so as to avoid this change in regulations, then if they work overtime they end up getting time and a half, right?

And you really believe that this practice, which has clearly been designed to bypass overtime laws by these businesses, carried with it any meaningful benefits?

Come on, that makes no sense. I am quite certain that the math used to decide what to label these employees was not upside down in favor of the employees via benefits. If it were, then the National Retail Federation would support this, right, because their members would save money.

Yes, I believe they do. Any proof on your part that they don't?

I'm not the only one predicting a reduction in hours and benefits.

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."

 

[BearCat204]

Yes, I believe they do. Any proof on your part that they don't?

I'm not the only one predicting a reduction in hours and benefits.

Its basic math really. Businesses will probably come out with a better margin after this because they will not have to give these "managers" the benefits they once were. Cut the hours and spread them to additional workers.

 

[hog88]

Will be interesting to see the reaction from businesses. I would guess that many will have their benefits cut and hours.

They will. Actual managers who's income is above the threshold will have to cover more hours and there will be less opportunity for trainees.

I would also like to know how this will apply to commissioned sales.

 

[hog88]

Its basic math really. Businesses will probably come out with a better margin after this because they will not have to give these "managers" the benefits they once were. Cut the hours and spread them to additional workers.

Yay! More part time workers instead of people working themselves into full time management positions.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Ok, you are correct. It's a procedural rule change that can be done without congress. You win.

Now that that's out of the way, let's discuss the actual change in rules. Just as the article states:



But now if you have a big group of employees cut from full time jobs, resulting in a loss of insurance, they can sign up for subsidized ACA.

It's cheaper to hire two 25-hour per week people than one 50 hr per week.

The answer is to hire more part time workers, increase ACA subsidization, and (since we count part-timers in the stats now) make the unemployment numbers look better.

 

[lawgator1]

Yes, I believe they do. Any proof on your part that they don't?

I'm not the only one predicting a reduction in hours and benefits.

It has always been true that businesses could avoid paying overtime by hiring more workers. Any time there is a time and a half scenario, that is true.

A business has to weigh against that the cost of hiring. But in that scenario does a current "manager" really lose? If they have a salary of, as the article posited, $23,000, and get no overtime, then if the employer has to choose between 1) keeping that person at 40 hours for that salary, plus hiring someone to do the overtime; or 2) hiring two people to do the work, evenly, for a certain hourly rate that is competitive enough to get people to show up.

The alternative is what you have now, which is using the label to falsely claim someone is a manager, and to effectively pay someone less than the hourly rate actually should be, in some cases less than minimum wage.

I have seen this scenario in a case I handled up close, and personal. It is a favorite ploy of certain Asian restaurants, where they send an employee over to the US on a work visa, call them a "manager" because 10 minutes a week they oversee the cleaning crew, and by contract they can only stay if they work there and work like 60 hours a week. Their effective hourly rate would make you embarrassed for this country!

There is far more abuse going on out there than you might realize. And I might add that the rule is just proposed. There will be hearings and input. This is the way the system is supposed to work.

 

[hog88]

It has always been true that businesses could avoid paying overtime by hiring more workers. Any time there is a time and a half scenario, that is true.

A business has to weigh against that the cost of hiring. But in that scenario does a current "manager" really lose? If they have a salary of, as the article posited, $23,000, and get no overtime, then if the employer has to choose between 1) keeping that person at 40 hours for that salary, plus hiring someone to do the overtime; or 2) hiring two people to do the work, evenly, for a certain hourly rate that is competitive enough to get people to show up.

The alternative is what you have now, which is using the label to falsely claim someone is a manager, and to effectively pay someone less than the hourly rate actually should be, in some cases less than minimum wage.

I have seen this scenario in a case I handled up close, and personal. It is a favorite ploy of certain Asian restaurants, where they send an employee over to the US on a work visa, call them a "manager" because 10 minutes a week they oversee the cleaning crew, and by contract they can only stay if they work there and work like 60 hours a week. Their effective hourly rate would make you embarrassed for this country!

There is far more abuse going on out there than you might realize. And I might add that the rule is just proposed. There will be hearings and input. This is the way the system is supposed to work.

There will always be abuse of any rule/regulation just as there is always unintended consequences (maybe the admin intends for these consequences) of any rule/regulation. And the example you provided is on the extreme and rare side of the spectrum not the norm.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Because government labor rules always work. k:

In this case the law may not be easily enforced by the government, but it gives the employee grounds to sue... which will work things out without the government getting involved.

It's really pretty simple. Businesses just need to be fair and set the terms upon hiring. Something like you get $30,000/year plus $22.50 for every hour worked over 40 per week. It's not that hard. It's BS to expect a "manager" to work 60 or 40 hours per week at the same rate. If the business expects their "manager" to work 50 or 60 hours per week then they just need to not lie that it's a 40 hour per week job. Supply and demand for the skills will determine the rate of pay.