|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
in my opinion its been needing a change since the current labor laws covering guaranteed overtime salary cap haven't been changed in 30 yrs. the new law raises the cap from $8600 to $23,000. good.
now from what i understand is that if you make more than $23,000 but less than $100,000 in specific white collar fields your rights for overtime are still protected however it becomes your employers responsibility to claim your qualifying status as described under the new law. there is the rub. the only thing stopping said employer from changing your status to protect his bottom line and profits is a federal labor audit and his integrity. in other words, as a worker you must trust the employer not to change your status.
if i'm not correct about this please do something. |
I agree this law needed change, and that it certainly is a good thing for those making under 23K, however I think categorizing anything above 23K as a "white collar" job is grossly overstated. Regardless of that minor semantics point, I think the overall effects will not be seen for awhile.
But what disturbs me the most are the numbers of who gains overtime vs. who loses overtime. Factcheck.org took MoveOn.org's numbers to task awhile ago, indicating that it inflated the figures to 8 million workers losing overtime:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=151
Even if we went by factcheck's corrections, we're still talking about over 6 million workers losing overtime. Now granted, I'm not too terribly worried about those individuals who earn close to the 6 figure range, but it does concern me for the rest of those folks in the lower and mid-range (including myself). The numbers for those under 23K who will gain from this new policy, however, are at best 1.2 million. While I certainly think they should earn their overtime pay, I tend to wonder about the uneven tradeoff of those who stand to lose it. And if I was running a business, when it comes down to the bottom line I think any CEO or owner would likely cut overtime pay as needed. Granted, this may possibly hurt worker retention, but considering our country already works more hours than any other country, I really don't believe this will matter much in the long run.
Overall, this is a very pro-business move, which is why unions are screaming about it. I think they are correct for the most part, but what I fail to understand is why there has to be such an uneven tradeoff. As to the effects to the economy, time will tell. I personally feel we can do better than to have to cut the overtime pay for millions of workers, thus screwing our already overworked employees in this country.
Incidently, here's another interesting downside to the new rule:
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/ml...ess/9468137.htm
Though it's somewhat a good thing that corrections must be made, I tend to wonder if any actually WILL be made. Business audits and IRS corrections have progressively slacked over the years.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|