Home » Obama’s mighty pen—or is it his phone?—works its magic on overtime pay

Comments

Obama’s mighty pen—or is it his phone?—works its magic on overtime pay — 9 Comments

  1. I was very much in favor of the President’s pen and phone statement until I realized the pen was not for writing his resignation letter and the phone was not for calling the moving company.

    To understand the impact regulations have on business, it would have been helpful to have actually worked for one.

  2. This regulatory change could be very disruptive and expensive–just what the economy needs. I’m a fairly regular commenter here, but am going to post the following anonymously because I could get in trouble for discussing it publicly.

    I work in IT for a smallish organization. We have one person doing payroll. A lot of the job is clerical, a lot is higher-level. You could argue either way about whether it should be “exempt” (from overtime pay, i.e. salaried professional) or “non-exempt” (subject to overtime pay, hourly). But it was exempt. Something over 10 years ago, in a couple of semi-emergency situations, the incumbent in that job was asked to work some overtime. It was a rare thing and only a few hours were involved, iirc under 10 in each instance (I knew, because I was asked to check the system logs). Well, not too long afterwards, she quit, and complained to the Labor Relations Board (not sure that’s the right name, but a federal agency).

    The result was an extensive inspection of our operation, which in itself was hugely time-consuming and expensive (lawyers!). They evaluated every position for whether they thought it should be exempt or not, and prescribed a very detailed set of changes–and monitoring more or less in perpetuity.

    It had all sorts of unforeseen consequences, most of which were not to anybody’s liking. Just one example: hourly employees were forbidden to eat lunch at their desks, lest they do some unpaid work. So one secretary who was working on an MBA at night and had been doing homework at her desk (with her boss’s blessing), using the computer there, was no longer able to do so. Some people were severely insulted when their positions were re-classified as non-exempt (lower status). It created a lot of work for my very understaffed area, because we had to provide tools for recording time more accurately–on and on. We are still feeling the effects.

    And nobody actually made more money: not surprisingly, the management response was not to pay people for overtime, but to forbid them under pain of death from working a minute over their allotted weekly hours.

    I myself work a fair amount of overtime, but I don’t mind–IT people think of it as coming with the territory, and I’m paid decently. But I’m sure the exempt status can be and is abused. Still, it really wasn’t in our case, and the whole thing was an object lesson in what a blunt instrument government regulation is.

  3. We need serious regulatory reform. FLSA should be repealed anyway. Want OT? Work at an employer that offers it. But they would probably offer higher base wages with out.

  4. Question: Since the President is Lawless; since he decrees “Law” as he sees fit, on his own whim….Is there then any ethical or moral obligation for anyone to obey the law?

    Not, “Is there any compelling reason to obey the law?”, but “Is there any ethical or moral obligation to obey the Law?”

    Discuss.

  5. Mike:

    Not legal. Illegitimate laws are not laws, but fictions. And I think that’s actually in the Constitution somewhere.

  6. To be redundant, the true hallmark of a Leftist totalitarian: what can I get away with? And it will not stop even when the telescreens are in every room, if there is more to get away with.

    Inside every Leftist is a Caligula burning to get out.

  7. Wonderful. I’m one of those employees classed as professional who doesn’t get overtime, but like Dept of Stuff, I get paid pretty well and consider it part of the job (plus in my position, it’s a hazard but not terribly common and mostly by choice). While I feel fairly certain my employer will find a rational way of dealing with this, this could conceivably have a very disrupting effect on how my office is run, and I shudder to think how bad it could be for those with employers perpetually running scared of the regulatory State. This will not end well.
    Also, in case it wasn’t obvious, I don’t want this! While OT is a nice thought, the secondary and tertiary effects of having it imposed are enough to more than cancel out any benefit. But then, I’m not a politician, so I actually have the brains and sense to spot that

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>