Executive order - overtime pay

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559
Executive order - overtime pay

Reports: Obama to issue executive order expanding overtime pay

President Obama will issue an executive order today expanding the number of people who qualify for overtime pay under federal labor law, according to news reports.
According to the Associated Press, the directive is designed to help salaried workers, such as fast-food shift supervisors or convenience store managers, who may be expected to work more than 40 hours a week without receiving overtime pay.
AP reported that under Obama?s proposed changes, the Labor Department could raise the pay threshold for workers covered by overtime rules.
The legal authority derives from the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, under current regulations, guarantees extra pay to salaried workers told to work overtime if they earn less than $455 per week.
Obama?s order would increase that salary level. The reports did not say by how much.
The move would ?potentially shift billions of dollars worth of corporate income into the pockets of workers,? the New York Times said on its Web site. The Times quoted Cecilia Mu?oz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, as saying the effort was part of Obama?s pledge to help workers thrive:

?We need to fix the system so folks working hard are getting compensated fairly,? she said on Tuesday evening. ?That?s why we are jump-starting this effort.?
Bloomberg said it confirmed the story.
The move is likely to infuriate business interests, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as congressional Republicans, who have accused the president of abusing his executive authority.
Obama and Democrats in congressional races are trying to make helping the middle class their central political theme heading into the 2014 midterm elections, using the issue to draw a contrast with Republicans. Obama has repeatedly said he will use executive orders and regulatory powers to bypass the Republicans, who have used their control the House of Representatives to block most of his initiatives, according to the Times:
?The proposed new regulations would increase the number of people who qualify for overtime and continue Mr. Obama?s fight against what he says is a crisis of economic inequality in the country. Changes to the regulations will be subject to public comment before final approval by the Labor Department, and it is possible that strong opposition could cause Mr. Obama to scale back his proposal.

Debate - Does President Obama have the right to this? Is it a good idea? Will it hurt businesses? Any other thoughts on the subject?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

My preliminary thoughts on the subject. Pres. Obama is hands down the worst president the US has had in my life time...

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

My preliminary thoughts on the subject. Pres. Obama is hands down the worst president the US has had in my life time...

Can you elaborate on you preliminary thoughts? In the spirit of debate.....what about this specifically contributes to your opinion that Obama is the worst president in your lifetime.

Not saying you can't have that opinion...just surprised that of all the things...a raise to an already existing limit would be worth that statement.

Or is this about the executive order thing. Because that is an old and rather boring debate, seeing as he has far less than many other presidents in your lifetime. Well, I don't actually know how long you've been alive. It applies to my lifetime at least.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"KimPossible" wrote:

Can you elaborate on you preliminary thoughts? In the spirit of debate.....what about this specifically contributes to your opinion that Obama is the worst president in your lifetime.

Not saying you can't have that opinion...just surprised that of all the things...a raise to an already existing limit would be worth that statement.

Or is this about the executive order thing. Because that is an old and rather boring debate, seeing as he has far less than many other presidents in your lifetime. Well, I don't actually know how long you've been alive. It applies to my lifetime at least.

Because this is not at all the purpose of executive order at all. That is more like a dictatorship. He might have less EO, but they are far too reaching. As for unilaterally changing people's pay, he is going to drive business out of business causing those people to not only to not have overtime pay, but to not have a job at all. Horrible move for businesses done in a cheap underhanded way.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

Ronald Reagan was president when I was born.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

Also, businesses do not need any more reasons to move to Mexico or China because of the much higher labor costs in the US.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

But some of the jobs mentioned are things like McDonald's supervisor. It's not like this EO is going to cause McDonald's to outsource supervisory positions.

Some of the people I know have been hurt by this. If their employer gives their job a certain title, they can pay a salary and expect more work. When I divided $455/week by a 40-hour week, it's only $11something an hour. If an employer can get 45 or 50 hours from the employee without having to pay more than that, it's a win for them. I don't think it's unreasonable to raise the $455 threshold.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

The problem is the quantity of changes that are hitting businesses. When the economy is struggling already under new Obamacare rules and expenses and they are already trying to increase the minimum wage and now this would you be hiring new people if you were a business? This is NOT going to get us out of this mess. Businesses and the economy are not going to grow when businesses are scared to move forward not knowing what they are going to be hit with next.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

To sum up:

1. You don't think minimum wage should be increased because of the financial hardship on a company.
2. People should be expected to move up the ladder instead of having a higher minimum wage.
3. When someone moves up the ladder (like a McDonald's supervisor) they can expect to be salaried and to not receive overtime and work, on average, 50 hours a week. (essentially making about the current minimum wage).

Yes, I can see why that would motivate someone to keep progressing at their job.

(I'm currently a salaried worker w/o overtime who makes way more than minimum wage and would be exempt from this who still thinks it is worthy)

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Jessica80" wrote:

To sum up:

1. You don't think minimum wage should be increased because of the financial hardship on a company.
2. People should be expected to move up the ladder instead of having a higher minimum wage.
3. When someone moves up the ladder (like a McDonald's supervisor) they can expect to be salaried and to not receive overtime and work, on average, 50 hours a week. (essentially making about the current minimum wage).

Yes, I can see why that would motivate someone to keep progressing at their job.

(I'm currently a salaried worker w/o overtime who makes way more than minimum wage and would be exempt from this who still thinks it is worthy)

The answer to the economy problems is not to over regulate businesses. Even if it was, one man should not be able to make such sweeping changes in private businesses without being accountable to anyone.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Because this is not at all the purpose of executive order at all. That is more like a dictatorship. He might have less EO, but they are far too reaching.

What are you basing this on. Have you studied up on the thousands of executive orders that have come before Obama?

Can you make an actual case for this...in a sound argument. Or are you just saying this without actually knowing how he compares?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"KimPossible" wrote:

What are you basing this on. Have you studied up on the thousands of executive orders that have come before Obama?

Can you make an actual case for this...in a sound argument. Or are you just saying this without actually knowing how he compares?

It does not matter how he compares to past Presidents. I believe that the Executive Orders that he has been doing are not in the Countries best interest. There are many reasons I think that Pres. Obama is a poor president, not just this.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

[quote]

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It does not matter how he compares to past Presidents.

Sure it does. this issue is a contributing factor to why you think he is the worse president ever (why else would that have been the one and only comment you would leave in your first post on the issue.

And when i asked you to elaborate you stated that this is "too far reaching" and not what executive orders are supposed to be for.

So i would only imagine that means you have the knowledge to explain to me how other presidents did not do this.

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

I am all for people getting paid what they work for. I feel it would be disheartening to those outside the thresh hold though. $455 a week is not a lot of salary, particularly when you're trying to raise a family with it. It seems though it'd be more worthwhile not to climb the ranks and just work more in lower rank....you'd earn more with likely similar hours as the paygrade ahead or so. It's kind of demoralizing to those who get promoted. Who wants just a title, with that much more responsibility when there is no extra compensation. At the end of the day, the paychecks will be what people see and care about because that's what's going to feed their family or not. I hope I've worded this right. I think there will be quite a lot of resentment among workers.

So I am for people getting what they work for, no doubt. But I don't think in this said scenario it's very good...at all.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"KimPossible" wrote:

[quote]

Sure it does. this issue is a contributing factor to why you think he is the worse president ever (why else would that have been the one and only comment you would leave in your first post on the issue.

And when i asked you to elaborate you stated that this is "too far reaching" and not what executive orders are supposed to be for.

So i would only imagine that means you have the knowledge to explain to me how other presidents did not do this.

It is in this situation more about how I think forcing companies to pay over time to salary workers is a horrible idea than it was done by EO, however the fact that it was done by EO just adds to the situation. There are many, many things that contribute to why I think Pres. Obama is a poor president. This is just a drop in an already full bucket.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

[QUOTE=KimPossible]

It is in this situation more about how I think forcing companies to pay over time to salary workers is a horrible idea than it was done by EO, however the fact that it was done by EO just adds to the situation. There are many, many things that contribute to why I think Pres. Obama is a poor president. This is just a drop in an already full bucket.

But it's fine for employers to pay shift leads a flat $445 a week and call them "salaried" so they end up making less per hour than those they are supervising?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

To be completely honest, when I first posted this article I missed the $445 per week cap and was thinking it applied to all salaried workers. Even still after I realised I mis read the article, I still think it is a bad policy. While I disagree with someone paying someone for 40 hours a week and making them work 80 hours a week, I do not believe this kind of a rule is the answer. I would have to go back and research more how it works.

That does not change how I feel about Pres. Obama, but I think that you would find the vast majority of Republicans my age would feel the same way. An interesting read (Not related to the debate, but I found it very interesting) on how the different presidents compair in Gallop polls to each other. I was very surprised by some of them. Presidential Job Approval Center

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1533

I read an article about raising the minimum wage recently. Bill Gates was cautioning our leaders that making wages to high will lead to employers automating or using substitutions instead of workers. I dont believe that salaried employees should be paid overtime. There may need to be adjustments in what is considered salaried or not. I personally love being a salaried employee. Most weeks I do put in more hours then what I am contracted, but on occasion I do cut out early and no one says a thing

Here is the article
Bill Gates: Raising Minimum Wage 'Does Cause Job Destruction' | CNS News

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

"mom3girls" wrote:

I read an article about raising the minimum wage recently. Bill Gates was cautioning our leaders that making wages to high will lead to employers automating or using substitutions instead of workers. I dont believe that salaried employees should be paid overtime. There may need to be adjustments in what is considered salaried or not. I personally love being a salaried employee. Most weeks I do put in more hours then what I am contracted, but on occasion I do cut out early and no one says a thing

Here is the article
Bill Gates: Raising Minimum Wage 'Does Cause Job Destruction' | CNS News

WOW how interesting considering that Bill Gates wants unlimited visas for workers to come from abroad....which is chopping salaries by a third. Is he really interested in our job destruction? And if it's destructed where shall the jobs go, to outside people who are willing to work hard with much less pay and complications like rights and all.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

I think it's sound and it protects workers who need the protection. There will be some cases where the numbers are juggled and it's unfair, but in the majority of cases, it will help those who have no protection and are being exploited.

I'm not an economist; I can't tell you the exact salary cap that will work. But these are low income people who are being pushed to work hours far beyond what is reasonable for their pay; if it breaks a company to pay a decent wage then they shouldn't be in business, because they can't afford it. You don't get to run a business by breaking the backs of your employees. There are creative ways to avoid paying overtime if it's that big of a deal, like having your salaried worker go home and adding someone else on an hourly basis to make up the time.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It is in this situation more about how I think forcing companies to pay over time to salary workers is a horrible idea than it was done by EO, however the fact that it was done by EO just adds to the situation. There are many, many things that contribute to why I think Pres. Obama is a poor president. This is just a drop in an already full bucket.

Ohhh, okay. So its really that you don't like the policy (which is a mere raise of an already existing limit)...and you particularly don't like policies that you disagree with being handed out via Executive Order.

But other rather controversial executive orders might be fine, if you agreed with them? (I'm thinking something like capping stem cell research or something)

If you had just said that you disagreed with this policy, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But it was the non-elaborated "worst president ever" comment thrown in here...with no other argument given...followed by a dictator/far-reaching rebuttal that really irks me.

I really dislike the portrayal of Obama issuing out an exectuive order as something shocking and atrocious. Its hypocritical and shouldn't be commented on unless you can really support it with facts, which would require pointing out how judiciously previous presidents issued all of their EO's.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

As for the actual policy...i actually had no idea that a limit like this existed.

Was it mentioned how the actual limit numbers were or are determined? THe concept is a bit fascinating to me. Everyone who works overtime is working their butts off....how does one determine what type of job is worthy of pay vs working overtime for free?

If the point is "They are working and hard and deserve to get paid for working extra hard" how does that only apply to a certain salary level?

I'm not saying i can't be convince that this is a sound policy to begin with, but i really need to understand it more.

My guess is if it does anything, it would simply prevent a mcdonald's supervisor fromm getting a lot of OT hours. One might say "Well thats great! Then they aren't being abused and overwrorked" But then i would ask why should a McDonald's supervisor not be overworked, but its okay for a computer programmer to be overworked?

I don't know...i need to think about this more. I think any cutoff based on salary will feel rather arbitrary to me unless someone shows me how its not. I don't like "abritrary-ness" lol

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"KimPossible" wrote:

Ohhh, okay. So its really that you don't like the policy (which is a mere raise of an already existing limit)...and you particularly don't like policies that you disagree with being handed out via Executive Order.

But other rather controversial executive orders might be fine, if you agreed with them? (I'm thinking something like capping stem cell research or something)

If you had just said that you disagreed with this policy, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But it was the non-elaborated "worst president ever" comment thrown in here...with no other argument given...followed by a dictator/far-reaching rebuttal that really irks me.

I really dislike the portrayal of Obama issuing out an exectuive order as something shocking and atrocious. Its hypocritical and shouldn't be commented on unless you can really support it with facts, which would require pointing out how judiciously previous presidents issued all of their EO's.

Overall I am not in support of EO for anything other than procedural issues. Presidents should not be able to make laws. It does not matter to me that all Presidents do it, I still think it is wrong. I also am entitled to my opinion that Pres. Obama is the worst president of my life time. I know a great many people who agree with me. I also remember plenty of Democrats saying they felt the same way about Pres. Bush. I might not agree, but they were allowed to have that opinion.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Overall I am not in support of EO for anything other than procedural issues. Presidents should not be able to make laws. It does not matter to me that all Presidents do it, I still think it is wrong. I also am entitled to my opinion that Pres. Obama is the worst president of my life time. I know a great many people who agree with me. I also remember plenty of Democrats saying they felt the same way about Pres. Bush. I might not agree, but they were allowed to have that opinion.

I don't have a problem with your belief that he is the worst president ever. I even said you are entitled to that opinion. So you don't need to convince me that you are allowed to think that. But I do have a problem(not a personal problem, a debate style problem) with throwing it around in specific debates when you can't really prove how this issue contributes to that actual feeling. I mean disagreeing with a specific policy is one thing...we all disagree with every president at some point or another. But to say something contributes to someone being the "worst president ever" is a different thing.

When in reality you disagree about raising an existing limit and the idea of Executive Orders in general which the latter has nothing to do with Obama himself.

I feel like its just building a straw man case against Obama to say "He's the worst presient ever!!!" and get that worked up over something that really...when it comes to presidential decisions, this is not worth such outstanding comments. If you are going to convince yourself that he is the worst president ever, do it objectively. This just...how can you argue that this issue stands out as something that contributes to 'the worst presidency'

If someone writes a book about the worst president ever...whoever that president might be, i sure hope its filled with better fodder than this!

I think this bugs me because people get so worked up about who they hate that they no longer look objectively at things and everything is a big deal. I don't mean you, i mean people in general. Nothing any longer is just a 'simple disagreement'....its a "This is TERRIBLE! OMG!"

Its so divisive and contributes to our stalled out government. And FTR I think Dems often do it too with Reps. Doesn't make it right for either of them!

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"KimPossible" wrote:

When in reality you disagree about raising an existing limit and the idea of Executive Orders in general which the latter has nothing to do with Obama himself.

When I first posted it, I said that it was my "Preliminary" thoughts. I had done nothing but read the article. At that point I did not know there was an existing limit and I did not realise that it was not all salaried employees. If it was those things that I first thought, I had a very negative reaction and my first thought to reading the article was that "wow, he really is a terrible president". Those were my firsts thoughts on the subject.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

When I first posted it, I said that it was my "Preliminary" thoughts. I had done nothing but read the article. At that point I did not know there was an existing limit and I did not realise that it was not all salaried employees. If it was those things that I first thought, I had a very negative reaction and my first thought to reading the article was that "wow, he really is a terrible president". Those were my firsts thoughts on the subject.

Yes, i get that, but if you are going to throw it out there on a debate board...expect it to be debated!

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4097

I don't think this affects me. In California, simply being salaried is not enough to make you exempt from overtime compensation. (It's usually not paid, but compensatory time off.) And simply having a title of "manager" is not enough to make you exempt. It's what you actually do, and where you fall in the chain of command, that determines it.

Log in or register to post comments