How Obama's Reforms To Overtime Law Will Change People's Lives

[applegrove]

How Obama's Reforms To Overtime Law Will Change People's Lives

by Dave Jamieson at the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/obama-overtime-law_n_4957998.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

"SNIP.....................


In her years managing a small dollar store in Michigan, there were times when Dawn Hughey worked 60, 70, or even 80 hours a week just to keep the place running on a short staff. But no matter how many hours she logged, she was paid the same flat salary in the mid-$30,000s.

Painful as it was, Hughey often did the math. During the more crushing weeks, she earned a not-so-managerial $10 per hour, barely more than the people who worked for her. And she nonetheless found herself doing the same duties as them -- stocking shelves, manning the cash register and cleaning the floors.

"It was more like 60 or 70 hours a week than the 44 or 48 they told you when you got hired," Hughey, who no longer works for the company, told HuffPost. She said she used to laugh inside when her hourly workers said she got paid "the big bucks" for being a manager.

If Hughey felt she was overworked and underpaid, there was a simple reason for her predicament. As a manager earning more than $23,660, Hughey had been carved out of U.S. overtime protections, like thousands of other workers in supervisory roles in the retail sector. Her company therefore had an incentive to pile work onto Hughey, rather than onto her hourly employees, since they weren't paying anything extra for it.



.....................SNIP"

[sheshe2]

1. Yes.

They are hired for one job then given additional responsibilities. One job becomes three.

The pay never changes. I am grateful to this President for addressing this issue.

It's called equal pay for equal work!

Thanks for addressing it applegrove.

[Number23]

2. K&R

[SunSeeker]

3. Yes, it is basically wage theft by the rich from the poor.

The overtime exemption was justified back in the day on the ground that it only applied to executives, who had control over their schedule and had the bargaining power to demand a higher wage as the hours got longer--or could hire more people to do the extra work. Plus, the threshold was much higher in 1975--it was $52,000 a year in today's dollars. But like the minimum wage, it was not tied to inflation, thus it steadily decreased over the years in real dollars, until it captures 88% of all workers today, as opposed to only 35% of all workers in 1975.

Exempting 88% of workers from overtime pay is horrible for the economy (workers have less spending money, thus less demand for goods), keeps businesses from hiring more workers (why hire another person when you can just double up the duties on a $24K/yr employee) and terrible for our society (workers have less time to spend with their families). It should be a crime.

[daybranch]

4. Thank you for explaining so well

I had no idea how widespread the practice was. I truly thank the President for changing this. The question is what did he know and when did he know it?
Are there other similar situations wqhere he could make an executive order and rid the nation of these wage injustices? If you know of anymore, please reveal them so we can help be a catalyst for change. It seems to me that the wage at which one could be considered a supervisor and ineligible is awfully close to poverty and in many places represents poverty. Anything for business seems to have been the motto of the country for way too long.
Yes, this was a crime, but for businesses and corporations crimes go unpunished because they all do it and we citizens refuse to stop it.

[SunSeeker]

6. I'd like to see Obama order the IRS to fix the reg that allows 501c3 corps to engage in politics.

The actual statute on 501c3 corporations, like Rove's American Crossroads and the many secret-donor Koch groups, says they can't engage in any politics, but these corps pour money into elections, thanks to Citizens United, subverting our democracy. Obama can't do anything about Citizens United, but he can do something about the ridiculous IRS regulation that allows these 501c3 corps to operate tax free as "social welfare" organizations.

Why? Because even though the 501c3 statute says they must be "exclusively" social welfare organizations for their tax-exempt status, some bureaucrat in the Eisenhower administration wrote a regulation purporting to interpret the statute for purposes of how the IRS will enforce it. This regulation defines "exclusively" as "primarily," a squishy almost unenforceable standard that has allowed 501c3 corps to engage in politics. The reg in essence rewrote the statute Congress passed 100 years ago. That is illegal and is the real IRS scandal nobody talks about (except for Lawrence O'Donnell)--because too many people's ox would be gored. But I still hope Obama tells the IRS to rewrite that reg to comply with IRS statute. It sure would make it a lot easier to enforce too. All those tax exempt teabagger 501c3 corps would lose their tax exempt status. We working folks have carried those pigs' tax burden long enough.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

8. thanks for the explanations from me too.

Very clear. Much appreciated!

[Cha]

5. mahalo apple~Thanks Obama~

[jwirr]

7. There are two possible outcomes both good in their own way. People like the one in the OP will get

paid for the work they are actually doing or their hours will be cut and someone else will be hired to help them do the job. Either way the economy wins.

[awoke_in_2003]

9. In the early 90s

I was a manager for a large auto parts chain. 70 hours a week was pretty average, as they would never give me enough staff. I basically made per hour what my employees did. I will never work in management again. All the responsibility, none of the perks.

[William769]

10. kick & recommended.