Press Enter to search or select a section to narrow results

Obama Has A Plan To Bring More Workers Overtime Pay. Here's What It Means For You.

Obama Has A Plan To Bring More Workers Overtime Pay. Here's What It Means For You.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. · Friday, July 3rd 2015 at 10:29PM · 1532 views

In a blog post on The Huffington Post on Monday, President Barack Obama laid out his highly anticipated plan to extend overtime pay to more American workers. His proposal, which does not require approval from Congress, constitutes arguably his most sweeping economic reform through executive action since taking office. Under the plan, the administration says, an estimated 5 million more workers would be eligible for time-and-a-half pay when they work more than 40 hours a week. Given that overtime pay has become a foreign concept for many U.S. workers, some explanation is in order.

Who gets overtime pay right now?

Overtime pay in the U.S. mostly goes to hourly employees -- that is, the folks who clock in and out of work each day, often doing jobs we'd call blue-collar. The wage laws our lawmakers wrote during the Great Depression were designed to protect workers like that, as opposed to well-paid managers and executives. Salaried workers may be eligible for overtime as well, depending on their pay and job duties, but in reality very few are these days. The share of salaried employees getting time-and-a-half has plummeted in recent decades, from 65 percent in 1975 to 11 percent in 2013, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank that has been one of the leading voices on the issue.

How would Obama's proposal change that?

Primarily by raising what's known as the overtime salary threshold. Salaried workers who earn less than a certain amount are automatically eligible for time-and-a-half pay, regardless of what their job duties are or what their employer calls them. The current threshold, set by the administration of George W. Bush, is quite low: $23,660. Obama wants to more than double the threshold, to $50,440. According to the administration's estimates, the changes would extend overtime eligibility to 5 million more workers, though their impact could be even greater than that. EPI says they would affect 15 million more workers.

So does this mean I'll be getting overtime pay?

That all depends. If you're a worker earning a salary below $50,440 and you don't already get overtime pay thanks to a union contract or a cool boss, then there's a good chance you'll be among those who will be newly eligible. If you make more than $50,440, you may still be entitled to overtime pay, but it gets a lot trickier. It depends what your job responsibilities are. Under the so-called duties test, a whole number of criteria can be used to exclude you from overtime pay -- like how many workers you may supervise, whether or not you have hiring and firing abilities, whether your work is primarily intellectual, etc. The Labor Department says it will be re-examining those duties, but there's no saying whether they will change them to encompass more employees.

Say I do become eligible. How might this shake out for me?

Your employer would have some decisions to make. Let's say you typically work 50 hours a week. That's 10 more hours than what we consider a standard week here in the U.S. Your employer could keep you working 50 hours and pony up time-and-a-half on those 10 additional hours, bringing you a bigger paycheck. Or he could get you down to 40 hours, passing those 10 hours onto another worker and giving you more time to spend with your kids. If he does the latter, he would at least be paying that other employee what we call "straight time," rather than the time-and-a-half premium he'd be paying you. In that way, our overtime law encourages employers to spread the work around, which makes sense considering the law was established during miserably high unemployment. And if you make a salary in, say, the high $40,000s, there's a chance your employer will simply raise your pay to $50,440 just so he doesn't have to deal with tracking your hours and paying you overtime.

Sounds like everyone wins! Well, except my employer. Isn't there some way my boss will try to work around this?

Of course. There's a reason business lobbies have fought this reform fiercely -- it's going to raise their labor costs. Just like with minimum wage raises passed by cities and states, employers are insisting they are going to cut jobs because of the overtime reforms, but we won't know how true that is until the reforms go into effect. Even if job losses don't come to pass, there may be other ways they will try to adjust for the costs. That could mean starting workers at slightly lower salaries, or being less generous with raises, to compensate for the additional overtime pay. And, again, as with the minimum wage raises, they may search for other ways to offset the new costs. For, say, a retailer, that could mean raising prices a bit on consumers.

So who was pushing to see this reform done?

A lot of progressive economists who say it will raise wages and/or restore leisure time to the middle class. When our wage laws were written, it was pretty clear who was a manager and who was a rank-and-file worker on the factory floor. Our economy is much different now. Just consider someone who manages a Dollar General store. She may be a manager in name -- and therefore ineligible for overtime pay -- but she spends much of her day unloading trucks and stocking the shelves, just like her hourly employees. We think of managers as being in the middle class, but, as HuffPost has reported before, many of them work 60, 70 or even 80 hours a week for salaries in the $30,000s. In making his case for reform, the president has cited just these types of workers.

OK, so I'm pretty sure I'll become eligible for overtime pay. Can I go put money down on a new boat?

The reforms are not a done deal. They must still undergo a public-comment period, and business groups are expected to continue pushing back hard against the proposal. The plan could also get tied up in court or run into problems in Congress, either through a budget rider or a stand-alone bill from Republicans looking to block it. That said, the White House appears committed to moving ahead with the reforms, and the president said they hope to institute the changes sometime in 2016.

Share This Article

Comments (23)

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 8:32AM

This is good news for the middle class, blue collar worker.

Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 9:20AM

Well as was pointed out there can be impacts on consumers and therefore back on companies and therefore employees. A minor example: After the minimum wage was raised in California I went to an El Pollo Loco and as always asked for a milk with my drink. I was told that the no longer offered milk because management had gotten together with the employees to see where they could cut costs and dropping milk was one way they decided on. So I don't go to El Pollo Loco because I don't drink soda, it's garbage. Now if enough people stop going there because of this or other cost cuting measures (or maybe higher prices) then the company suffers and therefore the employees.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 10:17AM

Congress instituted the minimum wage in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The first minimum wage stood at 25 cents an hour. The last minimum wage increase occurred in 2007, when Congress raised the rate in steps from $5.15 an hour that year to $7.25 an hour in July 2009.

This is during the time when the stock market has reached an all-time recorded high, making trillions of dollars while the blue collar worker has been frozen at 2009 levels, that is six years while the cost of living rises. Remember, minimum wage was never meant for a family to live on but for the young to learn and gain skills of the trade and move on up the ladder. This is what happen after 30 plus years of Ragan economics.

This must change and we must come together to find and vote into office representatives of the people that will repeal this Robin Hood effect, take from the poor and give to the rich.

Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 10:26AM

Brother Deacon,

Were you ever satisfied with minimum wage? I know I wasn't. Was Obama ever satisfied with minimum wage? I don't think so. Minimum wage is no big deal.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 10:35AM

Brother Steve,

By this actions on the minimum wage issue taken by President Obama speaks volumes to answer that question of yours and for him the Minimum wage was a BIG DEAL and for one, I am glad that he took this Executive Action.

Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 10:42AM

Brother Deacon, I'm referring to President Obama's personal life. Nothing held him back. Why?

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 12:53PM

Brother Steve,

if you are referring to President Obama's personal life, then OK, sometimes I think out loud too.

YOUR QUESTION: Nothing held him back. Why? Timing, people will remember this as apart of his legacy.


Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 4:16PM

What I mean Brother Deacon is this. Back in the day they used to teach, anyone can become President of the United States. Maybe we should be teaching, anyone can make more than minimum wage in the United States. All this talk about minimum wage is defeatist. It teaches people to be victims.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 6:43PM

brother Steve,

Now you are sounding like a pessimist. This executive order is about President Obama most sweeping economic reform through executive action since taking office.

Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 7:13PM

Brother Deacon, I'm a realist. Society becomes conditioned to what it is used to. American society is conditioned to government doing for them what they'd be better off doing for themselves.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 7:32PM

Ok Brother Steve,

The last time I looked at the constitution it began like this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The People are the government. The representatives the people send to Washington represents the people.

Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 7:37PM

Brother Deacon, that's the theory.

Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 7:40PM

It was only a few short years later that President Washington warned of the dire consequences of party politics in his Farewell Address.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 7:47PM

So by you saying that the Preamble is history or a theory, are you saying that the constitution is not a living, ever changing document of laws?

Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 7:56PM

17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 8:00PM

18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 8:02PM

Thanks for the link Brother Steve. During the time that President Washington wrote that warning In 1776, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, historians estimate the population to have been about 2.5 million people, just 2.5 million people. Today, that population would rank around 5th in the largest cities in America. In just 200 years, the world population went from 1 Billion to over 7 Billion and the United States of America is a world player.

Now I know you know that.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 8:13PM

I only wish that this recent Supreme Court would have kept this warning in mind when they stopped the count in Florida or said corporations are people too.

This is why that it is so important that all of us who disagree with that ruling, need to come out the vote because if that court falls to corporations, The US will be unlike anything we have witnessed.

So by you saying that the Preamble is history or a theory, are you saying that the constitution is not a living, ever changing document of laws?

Steve Williams Saturday, July 4th 2015 at 10:51PM

Brother Deacon, I'm not saying the Preamble is a theory. What's a theory is that our Representatives actually represent We the People. And no, the Constitution is definitely not a living document, not in the sense that it can be freely interpreted. That's something the gun control crowd for one would like us to believe. There is a procedure in place to amend the Constitution and that procedure is there for a reason. It should be followed not circumvented.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Sunday, July 5th 2015 at 8:32AM

Brother Steve,

I agree with these words of yours: "There is a procedure in place to amend the Constitution and that procedure is there for a reason. It should be followed not circumvented.

That is the reason why every Man and woman of voting age need to vote in this up coming election because the Supreme Court would be used to circumvent these procedures.

Steve Williams Sunday, July 5th 2015 at 8:48AM

Brother Deacon,

Sometimes it can take a very long time to uphold the Constitution, as in the recent case of same s-e-x marriage.

Dea. Ron Gray Sr. Sunday, July 5th 2015 at 3:22PM

Let the process continue.

Post a Comment

Please log in to post comments.