Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 23, 2016

A federal judge in Texas issued a nationwide injunction on Tuesday against an Obama administration regulation expanding by millions the number of workers who would be eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay.

The regulation was scheduled to take effect on Dec. 1. It would raise the salary limit below which workers automatically qualified for overtime pay to $47,476 from $23,660.

The judge, Amos L. Mazzant III of the Eastern District of Texas, ruled that the Obama administration had exceeded its authority by raising the overtime salary limit so significantly. The ruling was hailed by business groups who argued the new rules would be costly and result in fewer hours for workers.

The Labor Department said it "strongly disagreed" with the decision and was "considering all of our legal options," raising the possibility of an appeal in the waning days of the Obama administration.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute, whose writings on the subject helped shape the administration's regulation, called the ruling "a disappointment to millions of workers who are forced to work long hours with no extra compensation."

While the injunction is only a temporary measure that suspends the regulation until the judge can issue a ruling on the merits, many said the judge's language indicated he was likely to strike down the regulation.

"We are, assuming that this preliminary injunction holds and there isn't an appeal or some other thing that disrupts it, done with this regulation," said Marc Freedman, executive director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which had challenged the rule.

Further complicating the picture is the fact that many large employers have already raised the pay of some employees over the new $47,476 limit, concluding that it would be more cost-effective than paying them overtime.

It is rare for employers to reverse such pay increases, making large employers potentially sympathetic to an overtime compromise that would effectively extend the salary increase to some of their smaller rivals.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"The court's decision suggests that the Department of Labor has no authority whatsoever to regulate a salary minimum," said Allan S. Bloom, of the law firm Proskauer Rose. (Judge Mazzant pointed out in a footnote that he was not commenting generally on the legality of establishing a salary limit, however, only the particular increase that the plaintiffs had challenged.)

In a statement, the Labor Department defended how the rule was created.

"The department's overtime rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rule-making process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule," the statement said.'

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2016-11-23 01:13 AM | Reply

This judge shouldn't be a judge, he is practicing his political persona from the bench. Trump claims he's coming in as President to help the middle class, if he doesn't defend this Executive Order you all know that his promises are a crock. I hope you're at least smart enough to understand that though for quite a few, here and in real life, I seriously doubt it. You'll watch him cancel this EO and at the same time pretend to be the savior of the middle class in America and the boot lickers will say thank you.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-23 07:58 AM | Reply

The minions who voted Republican must somehow think that one day, soon, they will all be owners of big businesses, because that is who the Republicans help - only big business. But the rubes I believe are just brainwashed and can't think clearly. Voting against their own and the country's interests.

#3 | Posted by rosemountbomber at 2016-11-23 08:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#3 | POSTED BY ROSEMOUNTBOMBER AT 2016-11-23 08:34 AM | FLAG: Actually many companies like the one my wife works for have become proactive in dealing with this administration. In advance of obamacare implementation they went from hiring mostly 40 hours a week workers to now only hiring people to work under 30 hours a week [over these past couple fo years through attrition, the majority of their sales staff work three days a week]. Now, due to this rule from obama&Co. all the store managers have transitioned from salaried workers to hourly workers. Action - reaction.

#4 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-23 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"over these past couple fo years through attrition, the majority of their sales staff work three days a week"

And is probably cheaper for the company but less profitable too. Losing the real performers can kill in any business where sales is important, when you replace them with part timers you save on salary but lose the sales that drive the business. I hope the owners of that business you wife works for go bankrupt. If they are making cut backs, as you say, they probably are going there.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-23 01:00 PM | Reply

But, will they still pay by the thread post?? What about butthurt replies...still 33¢??

#6 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-11-23 01:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Danni,

Did you read the judge's opinion?

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-23 03:11 PM | Reply

Some people would be happier with a king, ruled by edict and not by law, as long as that king wasn't Trump.

#8 | Posted by visitor_ at 2016-11-23 03:36 PM | Reply

"The department's overtime rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rule-making process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule," the statement said.'

Inclusive by whom? It would seem to me congress should decide these sorts of things, and not some "rule making process". Some issues, and this is one, are to important to be left to "process", and should be made by the people.

#4 | POSTED BY MSGT
All that stupid & wasteful effort because of the government intrusion, but hey, keeps the lawyers busy.

#5 | POSTED BY DANNI
Reasonable logic if the rest of the world didn't make the same adjustments, but everyone is doing it, so everyone loses.

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-23 04:22 PM | Reply

"Inclusive by whom? It would seem to me congress should decide these sorts of things, and not some "rule making process". Some issues, and this is one, are to important to be left to "process", and should be made by the people."

Except that is just not how it has been applied in the past.

"Since 1940, the Department's regulations have generally required each of three tests to be met for the FLSA's executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) exemption to apply: (1) the employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed ("salary basis test"); (2) the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount ("salary level test"); and (3) the employee's job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties as defined by the regulations ("duties test"). The Department has always recognized that the salary level test works in tandem with the duties tests to identify bona fide EAP employees. The Department has updated the salary level requirements seven times since 1938."

www.dol.gov

In short, this a*****e judge will be overturned. Possibly Donald Trump will rescind the Executive Order but then I want to see him try to make his case that he is standing up for the middle class. This rule affect between 4 and 5 million employees. It is absolutely time to increase the amount of income that an employee makes before you can just deprive them of overtime pay.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-25 07:56 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Why was this and many other 'great things' to be put in place at the end of Obama's reign? He had 8 years.

#11 | Posted by visitor_ at 2016-11-25 08:34 AM | Reply

I once worked a manager in a small retail store. We had one employee quit and the owner wouldn't let me replace them saying we had plenty of employees. Long an short I was working 60-70 hours a week with no breaks or lunch because we only had one person in the store at a time. I had no time to supervise the other employees unless I went to even more hours. All on a salary of 16800 a year. I worked it out and I was making around 5 bucks an hour.

I lasted 3 months and was gone. The store shut down 2 months after I left. I feel for people in this situation but there are jobs out there get the F out as fast as you can. That type of employer never changes, in many cases they can't afford to change.

#12 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-11-25 08:52 AM | Reply

"That type of employer never changes, in many cases they can't afford to change."

Probably true so then they should shut down their business and go get a job like I did but I never required anyone to work overtime without paying them overtime. When small unprofitable businesses close they allow more profitable businesses to charge higher prices which enables them to pay higher wages. A small unprofitable business does no one any favors by staying in business and undercutting the prices of more profitable companies just so they can eek out a survival.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-25 09:23 AM | Reply

I agree. We'd be better off with less competition. In a perfect world, the government should run the stores and the prices would be lower because they wouldn't have to worry about profits.

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2016-11-25 10:06 AM | Reply

When small unprofitable businesses close they allow more profitable businesses to charge higher prices which enables them to pay higher wages.

Not always true. For one thing small business usually charge more not less than the big companies. Also many times they are start up's.

If you work for them at the beginning the conditions are terrible but then you are in front of the line as they expand. In the case I cited it was clear to me that the owner had no idea what he was doing and growth would not happen, which is why I left. In another case I worked as a commission only salesperson for a start up company selling a unique product. They couldn't afford to pay me a salary but they had a good product and I was almost certainly in a position to become a sales manager and even a regional sales manager. I stuck around for a while there until like the first company it became clear the owner was clueless. Had he been open minded and listened to investors, me and a couple other people I would still be there making 10k a month plus. He actually had an investor willing to put up 1 million but he wouldn't take his operational suggestions so the investor withdrew. This was an investor who owned 2 successful companies on his own and our owner just knew he knew better.

You can't just say get rid of a small company because they can't compete. If they can grow and adapt it can be a win for everyone involved. Just about every major company today started out as a mom and pop and the folks who worked there in the beginning ended up being regional VP's etc.

Sometimes when you take a job like that you work in less than ideal circumstances in hopes of growing with the company. If the government forces regulations that kill the small guy who can't afford them the economy stagnates. It is contingent on the employee to gauge the future success of the business and make their own decisions on if they put up with the low rewards now in hopes of high rewards later or bail. If the government tries to protect every employee then the only jobs will be with big companies who can afford it. It's where we are going now in the walmart economy.

#15 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-11-25 06:31 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort