Millions of Americans Will Be Getting a Raise Soon Thanks to This Obscure Rule

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I agree. Another plan the administration is pushing for is paid family and sick leave.

Source

“How many working parents know that sinking feeling from sending their child off to school with a fever?” asks White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett in her Wednesday post, “Why We Think Paid Leave Is a Worker’s Right, Not a Privilege,” on LinkedIn. “And how many moms and dads have been denied the ability to bond with their newborn, or to care for an aging parent, all because they could not afford to miss work?” Too many, according to President Barack Obama.

I often times do not agree with the administration, however, they have been making some pretty bold moves lately.

a reply to: buster2010

Okeedokee.

originally posted by: stirling
1.5 times pay in worthless currency is still worth.....nothing.
The upshot would be small business going out of business......
Good way to further corporatize America.....
A better way would be to limit everyone to forty hours a week and hire extra people no?

Except that the dollar is not worthless. People have been saying that the US dollar is crashing for DECADES. Literally decades. Still has yet to occur. And as far as limiting everyone to 40 hours and hiring extra employees, that is already what many places are doing. Especially for low-paying jobs. Instead of paying decent wages and giving their employees 40 hours, they will pay them as little as possible and give them 20 hours. And why do they do this? So they will not have to worry about paying overtime, or at least this is a big part of it.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: rickymouse

Maybe so, but that too would be fitting and fairer and more of a win than what they've been doing.

It all depends on the situation. If the employer is paying a salary of 25 grand for forty hours a week and gets overtime at straight time now and his product cost is based on this labor cost, he will have one of two options. He can raise the cost of the product and possibly lose his customers or he can just hire someone to cover the overtime that the salaried employee was getting. This would create one part time benefitless job possibly but it would be another person off of the unemployment figures. The original employee would actually be making less and may have to quit.

These laws are being structured and can easily lead to an effect that is not desired by the employee. Also the employer could go with subcontract labor and then they have less liability, the subcontractor pays all the SS costs, no benefits like health insurance will be necessary. The package will look a little more appealing for the subcontractor but the employer will not be liable for unemployment insurance either and also is not responsible for having workers comp on subs.

This has the possibility of backfiring, but that does not mean that it positively will. Our government is on the side of the businesses more than they were in the seventies.

a reply to: rickymouse

Or, the hours not worked can go to the other workers who are receiving less hours.

The salary rules were a way for companies to avoid overtime pay for years. Never understood why the threshold was so low...well I do understand it because it was a way to avoid overtime laws.

Basically you could have a "manager"(I will use that term loosely since many companies do) that would be working 60-80 hours a week only getting paid the equivalent of minimum wage with no overtime. Of course, begs the question on why anyone would agree to something like that and the answer is most people don't.

For that reason, I will say this will not effect that many workers. Kind of like how raising minimum wage doesn't help most people.

Why?

Most people are not paid minimum wage, just like how most salaried employees aren't paid the lowest threshold.

Either way this will effect mostly low level management etc. Like every other push, it doesn't help the majority of workers out there. More bull# to look good politically.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Either way this will effect mostly low level management etc. Like every other push, it doesn't help the majority of workers out there. More bull# to look good politically.

Right, helping low level management isn't a worthwhile goal. It MUST be that they're just trying to make themselves look good.

originally posted by: Jamie1
a reply to: Daedal

It just means employers will not give additional hours to those that would increase the labor cost for those hours by 1.5 times.

Jeniuses in government pander to people to get their votes without explaining the consequences.

Same thing happened with ACA.

You are not an employer and have no clue what your talking about

" Millions of Americans Will Be Getting a Raise Soon Thanks to This Obscure Rule "

And then thousands of hourly workers might get laid off.

This "rule change" could do 2 things:

1. Get a few salaried people to vote Democrat.

2. Add more laid off people to government dependencies and vote Democrat.

a reply to: zackli

Stop baiting.

In the end this isn't going to help them and will just result in more people being added to hourly jobs which will just reduce the number of those positions overall.

This was inevitable because the threshold has been very low for a long time, but I was explaining how it will not make an ounce of difference in the long run to help any workers(including the current salaried ones). If anything they will be added to hourly jobs and have hours reduced below the amount needed to get certain benefits(like many hourly employees are).

originally posted by: jlafleur02

originally posted by: Jamie1
a reply to: Daedal

It just means employers will not give additional hours to those that would increase the labor cost for those hours by 1.5 times.

Jeniuses in government pander to people to get their votes without explaining the consequences.

Same thing happened with ACA.

You are not an employer and have no clue what your talking about

hahaha how do you know I'm not an employer? Psychic?

Businesses are demand driven.

Say you sell tacos. You sell 500 tacos a week for $2. That's $1000 in income.

You pay $500 in wages to your taco maker who works 60 hours a week. You make $100 in profit.

Now the government tells you that those extra 20 hours of wages are going to cost 1.5x more.

You do the math. You now have to pay your taco maker $580 instead of $500. That's a 16% increase in wages. And now you only have $20 profit.

Instead, you simply hire a 2nd taco maker, and have each employee work 30 hours. Your wages are now back to $500 for the month, and you don't have to pay for health insurance.

To me, it looks like the proponents of these policies are trying to help business, and destroy the working class, just so they can get more people to work and make the unemployment numbers look better.

That's what Obama is bragging about all the time. How he's reduced unemployment from the time he took office.

Both this proposal and the ACA give businesses incentive to have more workers who work fewer hours.

This isn't rocket science.

a reply to: jlafleur02

Im going to assume that most of these salaried employees are management right?

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: rickymouse
So does this mean that the wages of salaried workers will decrease and that there will be more low paid salary jobs created? Sounds to me that this is just a way of making the unemployment numbers look better. The average income of many people will go down because of this new law. How is this supposed to be better?

No - it does not mean that...

But it can work that way and many employers may find it beneficial to hire an extra person instead of paying the overtime rate.

Actually from a cost/benefit point of view that only looks at dollars spent paying overtime is less costly as you only pay 'benefits' once.

From a efficiency point of view, its better to hire more people.

My dad - old school management analyst always told me "if you can get your job done in 40 hours then the employer needs to hire". That is predicated on 'good people working efficiently'.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: jlafleur02

originally posted by: Jamie1
a reply to: Daedal

It just means employers will not give additional hours to those that would increase the labor cost for those hours by 1.5 times.

Jeniuses in government pander to people to get their votes without explaining the consequences.

Same thing happened with ACA.

You are not an employer and have no clue what your talking about

hahaha how do you know I'm not an employer? Psychic?

Businesses are demand driven.

Say you sell tacos. You sell 500 tacos a week for $2. That's $1000 in income.

You pay $500 in wages to your taco maker who works 60 hours a week. You make $100 in profit.

Now the government tells you that those extra 20 hours of wages are going to cost 1.5x more.

You do the math. You now have to pay your taco maker $580 instead of $500. That's a 16% increase in wages. And now you only have $20 profit.

Instead, you simply hire a 2nd taco maker, and have each employee work 30 hours. Your wages are now back to $500 for the month, and you don't have to pay for health insurance.

To me, it looks like the proponents of these policies are trying to help business, and destroy the working class, just so they can get more people to work and make the unemployment numbers look better.

That's what Obama is bragging about all the time. How he's reduced unemployment from the time he took office.

Both this proposal and the ACA give businesses incentive to have more workers who work fewer hours.

This isn't rocket science.

First - do you understand what salaried employment is?
Second - do you understand the difference in exempt and non-exempt salaried workers.
Three - The types of jobs - you and the others are talking about - are rarely if ever salaried to begin with.

You don't understand what this 'rule' change is about nor who it will effect.

It's likely to effect only mid range clerical and para-professional workers and low end management working full time jobs in large (and some medium) companies.

All it means is the government gets more tax money.

The more money people make the more they pay the feds.

Gotta love the progressive tax rate eh.

Which means it doesn't do a damn thing except give the FEDS more money to blow.

a reply to: Daedal

That is very true. Maybe other workers will benefit by it.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: jlafleur02

originally posted by: Jamie1
a reply to: Daedal

It just means employers will not give additional hours to those that would increase the labor cost for those hours by 1.5 times.

Jeniuses in government pander to people to get their votes without explaining the consequences.

Same thing happened with ACA.

You are not an employer and have no clue what your talking about

hahaha how do you know I'm not an employer? Psychic?

Businesses are demand driven.

Say you sell tacos. You sell 500 tacos a week for $2. That's $1000 in income.

You pay $500 in wages to your taco maker who works 60 hours a week. You make $100 in profit.

Now the government tells you that those extra 20 hours of wages are going to cost 1.5x more.

You do the math. You now have to pay your taco maker $580 instead of $500. That's a 16% increase in wages. And now you only have $20 profit.

Instead, you simply hire a 2nd taco maker, and have each employee work 30 hours. Your wages are now back to $500 for the month, and you don't have to pay for health insurance.

To me, it looks like the proponents of these policies are trying to help business, and destroy the working class, just so they can get more people to work and make the unemployment numbers look better.

That's what Obama is bragging about all the time. How he's reduced unemployment from the time he took office.

Both this proposal and the ACA give businesses incentive to have more workers who work fewer hours.

This isn't rocket science.

First - do you understand what salaried employment is?
Second - do you understand the difference in exempt and non-exempt salaried workers.
Three - The types of jobs - you and the others are talking about - are rarely if ever salaried to begin with.

You don't understand what this 'rule' change is about nor who it will effect.

It's likely to effect only mid range clerical and para-professional workers and low end management working full time jobs in large (and some medium) companies.

Yes, I understand.

I was using the taco maker to simplify the cause and effect relationships.

Overtime hours that cost 1.5x more will be filled by other employees who work part time, or employees will work less.

Only the largest businesses will be willing to pay 1.5x for overtime labor.

Do you seriously think the Democrats really care about the low wage salaried workers more than the large businesses that fund their campaigns? That's cute.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Wow it only took two pages for someone to even allude to the difference between exempt and non- exempt salaried workers.

The impact of this will only be marginal, i agree. Most companies worth working for already do this. Where you will hear the most wailing is from companies that create low level management positions specifically to avoid having to pay overtime. It's usually some business that runs tight margins, and they'd rather have an assistant manager ( who really is a manager in title only) they can work 50-60 hours a week at a rate that actually pencils out to a lower hourly rate than what they were making when in a non management position.
One of the major US dollar stores lost a major lawsuit over this not too long ago. Another US business i expect to whine about this is Pilot travel centers, closely held in part by the family of GOP Tennessee governor Haslin, who i know from family members who've worked there does the same thing.

I had ajob about a decade ago, where i flat out turned down a promotion to night warehouse manager not because i didn't want the extra responsibility, but because i did the math and saw that it really wasn't much of a pay raise and if you took out the time and a half from overtime it could be an actual pay cut during the busy months even if The paycheck was more stable during The. low demand months.

I did have an exempt management job about 7years ago that had an hourly wage, but paid me half time for hours over 40. I typically worked 45 to sixty hours a week there. This would drop my hourly wage significantly if you averaged it out. We called it Chinese overtime the more you work the less you get paid.But I also had monthly store level commissions on top of it along with good benefits so i didn't so much mind.

This is something that should have been handled long ago or tied to CPI by statute so that grand gestures like this are unnecessary.

The question I really have for anyone against this is should anyone making around $11.38/hour not deserve time and a half for hours over 40? This new limit will push it to over $20 an hour for exempt positions.

originally posted by: neo96
All it means is the government gets more tax money.

The more money people make the more they pay the feds.

Gotta love the progressive tax rate eh.

Which means it doesn't do a damn thing except give the FEDS more money to blow.

If that's true, then it's in the feds interest to have more highly paid workers. If that's what they want, then doesn't it make sense their policies are created to accomplish that?

originally posted by: Daedal
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I understand that. I'm trying to be optimistic about it you know. If a salaried employee works 55 hours a week now, and if the proposal succeeds, most likely they'd reduce his / her hours to avert overtime pay.

Instead of increasing prices to offset the cost, that is if they continued to work over 40 hrs, the hours left unworked could possibly be picked up by a lower wage person, thus increasing hours for some.

That is correct, part-time employees might get more hours. There are big businesses out there who don't care about their customer or their workers, but care about their shareholders. These are the ones the law is meant for, not the small business owner.

Small businesses should get breaks while corporations are still held accountable to the law.