Pay threshold for managers to rise to 50K

[Baron Scicluna]

The President is planning to change the labor laws that would require businesses that classify their workers as "managers" to pay them at least 50K, or make them hourly employees eligible for overtime. Meaning your local fast-food joint won't be able to have assistant managers who would make $24K working 60 hours a week for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/b...ore-americans-eligible-for-overtime.html?_r=0

Makes you wonder how this will affect newspapers, since they are such notorious low-payers. Small and mid-level papers may no longer be getting free labor.

 

[exmediahack]

I suppose if there ever was a political "run" where the President feels he can double down on a "Hard 13" against a 6 and still win, this is probably it.

He's playing with an awful lot of house money after the past seven days.

 

[cranberry]

I like that this is targeted right to the middle class.

 

[Ace]

This is long overdue. Good on the president. I hope this doesn't hurt the executive bonus plan too much, though.

 

[Steak Snabler]

I'm sure many companies will simply change the job title from "manager" to "team leader" or some such euphemism that allows them to work around the law.

 

[BTExpress]

Heh, we have several "team leaders" at our place. Believe they are considered managers, however.

 

[MisterCreosote]

I'm sure many companies will simply change the job title from "manager" to "team leader" or some such euphemism that allows them to work around the law.

I don't think the worker's title means anything. Right now, you can be automatically exempted from OT as long as you make in the low $20,000s. This raises that to above $50,000.

They can still pay ****ty salaries, but they can only avoid paying OT by not allowing those employees to work OT.

 

[FileNotFound]

I don't think the worker's title means anything. Right now, you can be automatically exempted from OT as long as you make in the low $20,000s. This raises that to above $50,000.

They can still pay ****ty salaries, but they can only avoid paying OT by not allowing those employees to work OT.

This. Which means a lot of "assistant sports editors" are either going to get raises, overtime, or some of their life back.

EDIT: After the appeals and the pushback from Business, of course.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

This. Which means a lot of "assistant sports editors" are either going to get raises, overtime, or some of their life back.

EDIT: After the appeals and the pushback from Business, of course.

Definitely. And I wonder which one will happen, the raises, OT or some of their life back? Obviously some of their life, while people above them on the food chain, making more than $50K, would get more of their life taken away.

And that's assuming we live in the fantasy world where these people are expected/encouraged to account for all of their working time and not work off-the-clock.

 

[LongTimeListener]

In the newspaper industry, people who are eligible for overtime (whether by law or union contract) have always been pushed or taken it upon themselves to work for free. Why do we think this is going to change?

 

[TigerVols]

I wonder if Hillary sent a dozen roses as a thank you to the White House today.

He's set her up nicely, when the enevitable complaints from the right roll in.

 

[Ace]

I don't think the worker's title means anything. Right now, you can be automatically exempted from OT as long as you make in the low $20,000s. This raises that to above $50,000.

They can still pay ****ty salaries, but they can only avoid paying OT by not allowing those employees to work OT.

No. You have to have some kind of managerial duties or be some kind of expert/trainer.

 

[cranberry]

In the newspaper industry, people who are eligible for overtime (whether by law or union contract) have always been pushed or taken it upon themselves to work for free. Why do we think this is going to change?

Yep. News people have always been their own worst enemies.

 

[Spartan Squad]

I don't think the worker's title means anything. Right now, you can be automatically exempted from OT as long as you make in the low $20,000s. This raises that to above $50,000.

They can still pay ****ty salaries, but they can only avoid paying OT by not allowing those employees to work OT.

Yeah, it doesn't so much matter what you make, it's your duties. You can't just claim someone is exempt from OT because you pay them twice minimum wage, they either have to be a supervisor (however you gussy it up), on commission or within the limited number of fields exempt from overtime (newspaper reporters I believe are among them*).

*to clarify, I believe so long as the reporter meets the salary threshold—2x minimum wage in CA—they can be exempt. I could be wrong, though.

 

[User 11148]

The board's awe at the power of the Presidential pen in such matters is amusing ...

To use Baron's example ...

If XYZ's paying $24K for 60 hours from a "manager," that's what those 60 hours are worth to XYZ. XYZ is going to get 60 hours worth of work ... it'll just be from more than one person. And, here's a news flash ... XYZ isn't going to be paying more than $24K for those hours.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The board's awe at the power of the Presidential pen in such matters is amusing ...

To use Baron's example ...

If XYZ's paying $24K for 60 hours from a "manager," that's what those 60 hours are worth to XYZ. XYZ is going to get 60 hours worth of work ... it'll just be from more than one person. And, here's a news flash ... XYZ isn't going to be paying more than $24K for those hours.

Which means A. A part-time job will be available for someone else and B. The "manager", if they so desire, will be able to take a part-time job themselves and make up,the difference, or even make more.

If XYZ decides to cut the "manager's" pay by 1/3 to reflect the reduced hours to 40 a week, the "manager" would only be making $16K a year, or roughly slightly less than $8 an hour. Which, in some states now, is below their minimum wage, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'll keep to the pay rate for now.

So now the "manager" either wants, or needs to make up their salary, so they find a 20-hour a week job on top of their FT job, at say $9 an hour. That's $180 a week, or roughly $9K a year, assuming two weeks off for whatever. So now, they're making the $16K at their 40-hour a week job, and $9K at their 20-hour a week job. They're now making $25K a year for working the same hours, instead of $24K.

 

[Ace]

The board's awe at the power of the Presidential pen in such matters is amusing ...

To use Baron's example ...

If XYZ's paying $24K for 60 hours from a "manager," that's what those 60 hours are worth to XYZ. XYZ is going to get 60 hours worth of work ... it'll just be from more than one person. And, here's a news flash ... XYZ isn't going to be paying more than $24K for those hours.

You live in a crappy, bottom-line world, Quant.

It's not what it is worth to XYZ -- it is what XYZ can get by paying. It's cheaper to pay one guy $30,000 to do that job than hire two people to work 30 hours.

 

[The Big Ragu]

You live in a bottom-line world, too, Ace.

What XYZ "can get by paying" is a function of supply and demand. It's just as much a function of what an employee of XYZ can get XYZ to pay for a job as it is what XYZ can get an employee to accept.

How is it cheaper to pay one person $30K than to pay two people $30K? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[cjericho]

No. You have to have some kind of managerial duties or be some kind of expert/trainer.

At McD's? show up on time and not as baked as those you manage?

 

[Ace]

You live in a bottom-line world, too, Ace.

What XYZ "can get by paying" is a function of supply and demand. It's just as much a function of what an employee of XYZ can get XYZ to pay for a job as it is what XYZ can get an employee to accept.

How is it cheaper to pay one person $30K than to pay two people $30K? That doesn't make sense to me.

I am saying in the long run it is cheaper to give that manager the OT and pay him say $30,000 a year to work his 50-60 hours than it is to hire two people to work 25-30 hours a week at $15,000 an hour.

Even though they would have meager benefits, the costs of having two people in that job -- and to have to train new people twice as often -- would not be worth it.