Over time rules...

[Larry Gude]

...OK, so, this is a great time to look at this new entitlement in context of the last one, the ACA, and the courts making up of law based on their special powers to glean intent.

The ACA said, clearly '...states...'. Clearly. The court said 'well, they MEANT federal...obviously a spel chek failure or something...' In that context, when the President made his various promises he broke, we can say the same thing "Well, he didn't mean what he said...he meant THIS..."

So, where this goes is this; the new overtime laws, as expressed by potus himself, are to give a bunch of people a raise. He then says, just as clearly, that what will happen is that business will stop working people over 40 hours and hire more people to avoid paying OT. Reasonable assumption. That said, as usual, the President is trying to have it both ways; give everyone a raise AND create jobs.

Advocates for the new OT rules point to the depression and how people who had jobs were working WAY more than 40 hour work weeks and that the precise goal was to make hiring more people less costly. So, all in all, we can agree that if you have to pay over time for a worker you want on the job 60 hours a week, in general you're gonna cut him to 40 and hire someone else for the 20. Simple, yes?

So, when this happens and the people who WERE working 60, 70, 80 hours a week are pissed that their hours, and total pay, is cut, will the court come a runnin' and say "Hey, that may be what it says AND we may have evidence to that effect but what was MEANT was you can't cut hours. You have to pay over time AND hire new people AND this and that..."

Double and triple speak is nothing new in politics. However, this is interesting as you can listen the potus promise raises for everyone via the new OT rules AND, in the same conversation hear him tell us this will create more jobs as business seeks to avoid paying OT so, there it is. Just another amazing day in alt reality world.

 

[Gilligan]

.

So, when this happens and the people who WERE working 60, 70, 80 hours a week are pissed that their hours, and total pay, is cut, .

Over the course of my career, the people working 60,70,80 hours a week (including me) were all on straight salary and not compensated for the hours worked over 40 - i.e "exempt" employees. I've always been operating under the assumption that if you do pay someone for every hour they work, that you also have to abide by overtime pay rules (non-exempt employees). I was not aware there were that many employees being compensated for hours over 40 at same hourly basis as for under 40.

 

[Larry Gude]

Over the course of my career, the people working 60,70,80 hours a week (including me) were all on straight salary and not compensated for the hours worked over 40 - i.e "exempt" employees. I've always been operating under the assumption that if you do pay someone for every hour they work, that you also have to abide by overtime pay rules (non-exempt employees). I was not aware there were that many employees being compensated for hours over 40 at same hourly basis as for under 40.

The change, as I understand it, is for salaried people. Now, if they make under $23k, they're owed more. The new plan is to move that threshold up to $50 k.

 

[Tilted]

Over the course of my career, the people working 60,70,80 hours a week (including me) were all on straight salary and not compensated for the hours worked over 40 - i.e "exempt" employees. I've always been operating under the assumption that if you do pay someone for every hour they work, that you also have to abide by overtime pay rules (non-exempt employees). I was not aware there were that many employees being compensated for hours over 40 at same hourly basis as for under 40.

The only reason those salaried employees were exempt from the overtime pay rules would have been that they made more than a certain amount (that amount used to be in the low $20,000s).

Salaried employees is what this rule is about. Employees can designate salaried employees as administrative or something like that and thus not have to pay them overtime. But below a certain annual salary, that didn't apply - they still had to pay those salaried workers overtime. What this new rule does is greatly increase that amount, to somewhere in the $50,000s. So, if you have a salaried worker that makes $45,000 a year, you would now have to pay them overtime, at time and a half, if they work more than 40 hours in a week. That could be problematic in a number of ways.

Larry, I'm glad you started this thread. I've been meaning to get into a discussion about this and the likely effects of it. I'll have to return to do so. You make some good points.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Over the course of my career, the people working 60,70,80 hours a week (including me) were all on straight salary and not compensated for the hours worked over 40 - i.e "exempt" employees. I've always been operating under the assumption that if you do pay someone for every hour they work, that you also have to abide by overtime pay rules (non-exempt employees). I was not aware there were that many employees being compensated for hours over 40 at same hourly basis as for under 40.

All government employees over GS-10 Step 10 are compensated at the regular hourly rate, it use to be a lower hourly rate than your regular hourly rate.

 

[Larry Gude]

Larry, I'm glad you started this thread. I've been meaning to get into a discussion about this and the likely effects of it. I'll have to return to do so. You make some good points.

It's not like I had to do much thinking about it. The clip I heard the President give, he said "A raise for 5 million people due to the over time change and business will choose to hire more people rather than pay OT, create new jobs!!!..." and the audience went "Oooohhh! Ahhhh!!!" It was awful. I mean, we just sit there and listen to this inanity... Obama is a special guy. Clinton was smooth because he could at least sound reasonable "We'd like to see every Eskimo to never be deprived of ice cubs so that their children may not want. Together, we can do this..." He appealed to people's feelings. Obama just says "1 + 1 = 3 and 3 - 1 = 1!" Obama, I have long pondered. I used to think he simply thought we were all stupid. Now, I have begun to see what he says and does through the lens of legacy. He never cared what was in the ACA. He just wanted it done in his name. He could say 'you can keep your doctor' in context of 'whatever I need to say". He wants foreign policy checked off and if it takes GIVING Iran some bombs to get a deal, so be it. Economy, so what if ALL of the 'growth' was tied to QE?

I mean, intellectually, Clinton was sincere; he wants those poor people to have ice. Obama could not care less about a raise or a hire. He just wants to say "I raised wages AND hired more people" and deliver nothing.

 

[This_person]

...OK, so, this is a great time to look at this new entitlement in context of the last one, the ACA, and the courts making up of law based on their special powers to glean intent.

The ACA said, clearly '...states...'. Clearly. The court said 'well, they MEANT federal...obviously a spel chek failure or something...' In that context, when the President made his various promises he broke, we can say the same thing "Well, he didn't mean what he said...he meant THIS..."

So, where this goes is this; the new overtime laws, as expressed by potus himself, are to give a bunch of people a raise. He then says, just as clearly, that what will happen is that business will stop working people over 40 hours and hire more people to avoid paying OT. Reasonable assumption. That said, as usual, the President is trying to have it both ways; give everyone a raise AND create jobs.

Advocates for the new OT rules point to the depression and how people who had jobs were working WAY more than 40 hour work weeks and that the precise goal was to make hiring more people less costly. So, all in all, we can agree that if you have to pay over time for a worker you want on the job 60 hours a week, in general you're gonna cut him to 40 and hire someone else for the 20. Simple, yes?

So, when this happens and the people who WERE working 60, 70, 80 hours a week are pissed that their hours, and total pay, is cut, will the court come a runnin' and say "Hey, that may be what it says AND we may have evidence to that effect but what was MEANT was you can't cut hours. You have to pay over time AND hire new people AND this and that..."

Double and triple speak is nothing new in politics. However, this is interesting as you can listen the potus promise raises for everyone via the new OT rules AND, in the same conversation hear him tell us this will create more jobs as business seeks to avoid paying OT so, there it is. Just another amazing day in alt reality world.

There are two likely outcomes, in my opinion. One is that you cut another employee to pay the "manager" who was salaried and is now required to be compensated for >40 hours/week, the other is that you now pay two people at 30 hours/week, get rid of the ACA requirements, and you're back to square one. The people who were managers are now part-time employees at reduced wages, but, hey, they get more time at home with the family (or, they take another job to make ends meet). Personally, having run the budgets for employees, I know it's cheaper to pay people time and a half for a few scattered hours here and there than it is to cover the administrative and training costs of extra employees, but that may not be true for all instances. McDonald's shift managers likely are easier to replace and so you just hire more at lower hours.

 

[Gilligan]

The only reason those salaried employees were exempt from the overtime pay rules would have been that they made more than a certain amount (that amount used to be in the low $20,000s).

Salaried employees is what this rule is about. Employees can designate salaried employees as administrative or something like that and thus not have to pay them overtime. But below a certain annual salary, that didn't apply - they still had to pay those salaried workers overtime. What this new rule does is greatly increase that amount, to somewhere in the $50,000s. So, if you have a salaried worker that makes $45,000 a year, you would now have to pay them overtime, at time and a half, if they work more than 40 hours in a week. That could be problematic in a number of ways.

Larry, I'm glad you started this thread. I've been meaning to get into a discussion about this and the likely effects of it. I'll have to return to do so. You make some good points.

So my understanding (as manager of exempt and non-exempt employees for over 25 years) was correct then.

So how businesses respond (hire more people or start paying overtime) would depend pretty heavily on how "consistent" the additional hours over 40 are ..and how many. For example, I wouldn't look to hire somebody if I'm only facing paying an existing skilled employee overtime for a limited number of hours or sporadic and infrequent periods where the OT is necessary. On the other hand, if I've got people who are consistently putting in 50-60 hours a week as exempt employees, I might be inclined to add a new position. If I've got people that are consistently putting in more than 60 hours a week as exempt employees....and I'm not already paying them more than the new threshold, I - and they - need our heads examined.

Be interesting to see how it does shake.

 

[Gilligan]

All government employees over GS-10 Step 10 are compensated at the regular hourly rate, it use to be a lower hourly rate than your regular hourly rate.

I figured the government did things a bit differently than private sector. I recall that from my brief time as a GS engineer. Private sector is what I'm much more familiar with.

 

[Larry Gude]

There are two likely outcomes, in my opinion. One is that you cut another employee to pay the "manager" who was salaried and is now required to be compensated for >40 hours/week, the other is that you now pay two people at 30 hours/week, get rid of the ACA requirements, and you're back to square one. The people who were managers are now part-time employees at reduced wages, but, hey, they get more time at home with the family (or, they take another job to make ends meet). Personally, having run the budgets for employees, I know it's cheaper to pay people time and a half for a few scattered hours here and there than it is to cover the administrative and training costs of extra employees, but that may not be true for all instances. McDonald's shift managers likely are easier to replace and so you just hire more at lower hours.

Right but, what of the guy who was working the 60-70 hours and needed it? He would love to get the time and a half equivalency but, unless he works for you, he NOW has to go find a part time job at some other place, picking up PT hours THE guy there just lost and THAT guy is now going to have to go to the first guys primary job and pick up extra hours THERE.

It is INSANE. I mean, stupid on a molecular level and it was fascinating listening to our President say he is getting everyone a RAISE and business won't pay it and will hire new people, win/win!!! This WILL amount to a pay cut for most people who do not work for you and are simply going to see their hours cut and have to go to a second job to make it up.

Inane.

 

[This_person]

Right but, what of the guy who was working the 60-70 hours and needed it? He would love to get the time and a half equivalency but, unless he works for you, he NOW has to go find a part time job at some other place, picking up PT hours THE guy there just lost and THAT guy is now going to have to go to the first guys primary job and pick up extra hours THERE.

It is INSANE. I mean, stupid on a molecular level and it was fascinating listening to our President say he is getting everyone a RAISE and business won't pay it and will hire new people, win/win!!! This WILL amount to a pay cut for most people who do not work for you and are simply going to see their hours cut and have to go to a second job to make it up.

Inane.

Oh, we agree. Gilligan said it better than I did about who would get the raise and who would get cut/job-shared, but the end result is the same. The likelihood is that a small percentage of people will either see their pay raised minutely (and, their benefits and perks cut to pay for it), and a larger percentage of people will see their hours cut.

As with the Seattle city council person's claim that raising the minimum wage would simply be money that comes from greedy business owners' profits, I think our president and his staff believe the same from this. Sad for them (and all the people who are hurt by their lack of understanding), that's not how things work.

You're a business owner with employees. How would you handle it?

 

[Ken King]

Right but, what of the guy who was working the 60-70 hours and needed it? He would love to get the time and a half equivalency but, unless he works for you, he NOW has to go find a part time job at some other place, picking up PT hours THE guy there just lost and THAT guy is now going to have to go to the first guys primary job and pick up extra hours THERE.

It is INSANE. I mean, stupid on a molecular level and it was fascinating listening to our President say he is getting everyone a RAISE and business won't pay it and will hire new people, win/win!!! This WILL amount to a pay cut for most people who do not work for you and are simply going to see their hours cut and have to go to a second job to make it up.

Inane.

As I understand it this concerned salaried employees, those that got the same whether they worked 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80 hours a week. So they were never getting anything extra for the hours over 40 to begin with.

 

[Gilligan]

Right but, what of the guy who was working the 60-70 hours and needed it? .

?? Back to my earlier post....who ARE those guys? PE noted that GS employees might be those guys. But I've never had employees paid only straight time for hours worked over 40. If they are non-exempt they are paid time and a half for hours worked over 40.

 

[Gilligan]

As I understand it this concerned salaried employees, those that got the same whether they worked 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80 hours a week. So they were never getting anything extra for the hours over 40 to begin with.

Bingo. But now, unless they earn over the new threshold salary, they will now be paid for every hour over 40 and paid time-and-a-half at that.

 

[Gilligan]

I've been in the workforce for about 30 years and I've had to work a lot of overtime in my career. I was always defined as "exempt" and was paid straight time. During one stretch it was written into the contract that we didn't have to be compensated for OT until it hit the 45 hours per week mark. That meant we donated 5 hours free before making straight time per hour after that each week. Never did we make time and a half.

Were you employed by a company working for the government. by chance? That's an interesting arrangement you described but it appears to be a negotiated and "mutual agreement" sort of thing. And not a bad way to treat overworked exempt employees either, it would appear.

I worked for a small company as an exempt engineer, along with a number of other exempt engineers, where we were paid a fixed salary while routinely putting in 70-80 hour weeks and more. I recall more than one 100+ week. IT was supposed to be a "temporary" situation to cope with rapid growth. After a few years of that , however, there was a sort of mini-revolt and the company was forced to increase salaries for all concerned and also hire a couple more engineers. Didn't change the basic policy though...you still got paid your salary and not one penny more.

 

[Ken King]

Bingo. But now, unless they earn over the new threshold salary, they will now be paid for every hour over 40 and paid time-and-a-half at that.

So, in essence all this rule has done is eliminated "salaried" below a certain monetary threshold.

 

[Larry Gude]

?? Back to my earlier post....who ARE those guys? PE noted that GS employees might be those guys. But I've never had employees paid only straight time for hours worked over 40. If they are non-exempt they are paid time and a half for hours worked over 40.

These guys are grunts who got a title, some responsibility and became salaried to avoid paying them over time.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

I have trouble believing that there is someone that works in a job 60+ hrs a week with a compensation of less than 50k/year unless they are the business owner.

Someone so valuable that they need to work this much should be valued more than $16/hr.

 

[Larry Gude]

...were never getting anything extra for the hours over 40 to begin with.

Yup. And the President's goal is that they get extra for that so that they will not get a raise because companies will cut those hours, hire new people and force the over 40's to go get second jobs to replace the lost income.

What could go wrong with that?

 

[Tilted]

So, in essence all this rule has done is eliminated "salaried" below a certain monetary threshold.

It would, if adopted, raise the threshold above which salaried employees could be exempt from the overtime pay requirements.