skip to main |
skip to sidebar
New overtime rules unlikely to help workers
By Aparna Mathur of AEI.
"President Obama’s proposed overtime legislation would affect nearly 5
million workers by increasing the salary level for exemption status to
$50,440 per year from its current level of $23,660. However, evidence on
the effects of such overtime provisions on workers suggests that the
impacts are not likely to be beneficial.
These new regulations
will impose incremental costs on employers by requiring them to make
additional payments to workers that put in more than 40 hours per week.
Employers can respond to these higher costs in several ways. First, they
can cut the base or regular wage for workers who will likely receive
these overtime payments. Second, they can cut existing workers’ hours
and hire new workers who will also work fewer than 40 hours per week.
Third, they can cut their hours or their jobs entirely and invest in a
machine that can do the same job, perhaps more cheaply. Fourth, they can
keep the workers but pass on the costs to consumers in the form of
higher prices. Fifth, they can keep the workers, pay them the time and a
half premium and bear the brunt of the higher costs.
Which of these scenarios is the most likely?
A recent study
found that many firms, in response to 2004 regulation changes in
overtime pay, lowered the base wage in jobs that often required overtime
work in order to offset the new higher costs of overtime pay. In
particular, workers in minimum wage or near-minimum wage jobs were given
fewer overtime hours by their employers. This is likely because at that
wage level, employers can no longer adjust wages downward so they are
more likely to cut overtime use.
An earlier paper studied the
impact of overtime regulations by comparing wholesale workers and retail
workers between 1938 and 1950. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
mandated time and a half overtime pay for wholesale workers, but not for
retail workers. Using this difference in regulation, the author found
that overtime mandates reduced the number of hours worked. Among workers
in wholesale trade there was a 5 percent reduction in the length of the
standard work week and 18 percent fewer men and women reported working
more than 40 hours per week. The study also found that changes in hours
depended upon whether the employers had flexibility to adjust regular
wages. In the South, firms could not adjust wages as much due to minimum
wage regulations, so Southern firms cut more hours compared to other
regions. Finally, although the FLSA led to reductions in number of hours
worked, it had little impact on levels of employment.
Not
surprisingly, the Department of Labor’s own projections take into
account how firms will likely respond to these new rules. Their report
suggests that affected workers will see their base pay and hours
reduced, but despite that they project that overall earnings will
increase due to higher overtime pay rates. This latter assumption seems
implausible in light of the research findings discussed above.
In
today’s economy, determining what is overtime and what isn’t is not
entirely straightforward. Some workers value flexibility to work on
weekends and at odd hours, which employers can compensate through
additional vacation days or higher bonuses. Imposing a rigid structure
on the exact form of compensation or the nature of the employer-employee
relationship is unlikely to be beneficial to workers or employers in
the long-run.
I believe the most likely effect of this rule will
be that firms reduce workers’ hours to avoid the threshold for having to
pay higher overtime rates. As per today’s job report from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, we already have 6.5 million workers who are
involuntarily working less than full-time because of poor economic
conditions. The Affordable Care Act has created further incentives for
firms to hire workers who work less than 30 hours in order to avoid
paying for their health insurance. Unfortunately, it appears that this
legislation will push us further in that direction with no obvious
benefit and very tangible costs."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.