Congressional Republicans are outraged, outraged at proposals to raise the salary limit at which point someone becomes ineligible for overtime pay.
'Currently, employers are required to pay overtime for all employees who make $23,660 or less per year. The new rule, proposed by DOL’s Wage and Hour Division, would raise the salary threshold and require employers to pay overtime for all employees who make $50,440 or less per year. With the implementation of the rule, nearly 5 million employees would suddenly become eligible for overtime pay. This 113 percent increase in the salary threshold would place a large burden on business owners and their workers, and is a major departure from previous DOL policy.'
Well, yes, 113% seems like a huge jump … except that it's the result of a gradual decrease in who is eligible for OT pay — the salary threshold hasn't increased along with average salaries, meaning it covers less and less of the population, even as people work more and more. As the article notes:
'Fifty years ago, more than sixty percent of all American workers qualified for overtime pay. But because the threshold has stayed stagnant for all that time, only eight percent of all Americans qualify today. And we’re working harder than ever: Americans work 47 hours a week on average. The new overtime rule wouldn’t bring anything new to the business paradigm in America; it would simply unrig the game.'
Makes sense to me.
One Hundred and Six Congressional Republicans Come Out Against Overtime
One hundred and six congressional Republicans and two Democrats have sent an open letter (PDF) to Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez protesting the Department of Labor’s new proposed overtime rules. (You can read more about overtime rules in this post by Nick Hanauer, but in brief the new regulations
Sorry -isn’t any legal limit Big Gubmint? People in Britain now thinking “They have a OT limit?”
Just realised that is only £16k a year. Good God, the advantages of US free market capitalism.
Work life balance something something…
This doesn't mention how many positions are no longer eligible (I can't remember now, but is used to be software developing was no longer a overtime paid job) or how some companies won't pay overtime until over 45 hours. Hubs old company didn't pay him over time until he worked at least 45 hours…so they always had him work 44. The rules are already wonky…
+Sandy L. While there have been professional boundaries as to FLSA Exemption (being a supervisor/manager is an automatic exemption, which has been gamed sometimes by companies, and "professional" classification is sometimes exempted, like computer progreamers), I've never heard of a case where there was a 45 hour threshold. That sounds … dubious.
Doing some quick checking, the only way a 45 hour threshold is legal is if that's including non-working lunch breaks in the total.
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/06/comp-time-and-overtime-only-after-45-hours-of-work-a-week has some good analysis of the issues.
Like his job now…he is/was supposed to get an hour lunch but he never did (just like he doesn't now. It seems the ppl at his new company don't know that you are supposed to get a lunch break). I never thought it was right either to be fair…it had something to do with how his job was categorized and it could have recently changed (recently as in the last 3 years).
+Sandy L. I know we went through an exercise in my previous company in the last 3-5 years, looking at how individuals were classified (Exempt / Non-Exempt) and making sure we were following the rules. I seem to recall there were either changes or proposed changes in (reducing) the types of work that were automatically classified as Exempt.
+Dave Hill I think it is all bullshit. If you are working over 40 hours no matter your job (barring salary pay) then you should get overtime pay. Hubs doesn't get overtime now because he is salary and gets paid the same no matter what. Admittedly, I haven't working in a number of years due to staying at home with my kids, yet the vibe I get from everyone else around me that works the environment is work work work, on weekends, at night, on your day off, can't say no…etc. Yet no one wants to pay for that kind of work and then expect some kind of company loyalty. Sorry, got off on a different topic for a different day.
+Sandy L. Well, it does depend upon the job write-up, how it is classified, and a number of other tests to see if the position is exempt from the FLSA. To a certain degree, if one is salaried, then one basically works what is necessary to get the job done. But there are limits in how companies make that sort of designation to avoid just the kind of abuse that you;re being described.