On June 30, 2015, the Department of Labor submitted a notice of proposed rulemaking
to significantly modify the exemptions in the Fair Labor Standards
Act’s overtime rules. Most notably, the proposed rule greatly increases
the minimum salary threshold for exempt workers.
Currently, under the FLSA, overtime regulations require
time-and-a-half pay for every hour above 40 that an hourly employee
works in week. Workers may be exempt from overtime pay if they are
salaried employees who perform executive, administrative, professional,
and outside sales activities and make more than $23,660. The exemption
targeted by the DOL’s proposed rule is the salary exemption threshold.
The agency plans on raising the threshold 113 percent from $23,660 to
$50,440.
Currently, the DOL is reviewing hundreds of thousands of comments and plans on finalizing the rule in the summer of 2016.
DOL officials claim
that the proposed rule is intended to give workers a raise. Yet, a
number of unintended consequences will arise if the rule is finalized
and has little chance of giving workers a sizeable pay increase.
There is no doubt that the DOL rule change will increase the amount of employees eligible for overtime (estimated at 5 million workers),
but unlike increases in the minimum wage, the government cannot force
employers to pay employees more via the overtime rule, because employers
can take steps to keep labor costs at relatively the same level, either by degrading salaried employees to hourly, hiring fewer employees, reducing base pay, or cutting back hours.
And these choices employers will have to make to keep labor costs
constant will have a detrimental impact of the prospects of employees.
For example, demoting junior managers to hourly workers may have
devastating impact on those workers’ career trajectories. Once on a
management track and gaining supervisory skills, now they are performing
more basic tasks with less opportunity for advancement.
Another negative consequence comes from demoting low-level
mangers—the loss of flexible schedules. As a salaried manager, if a
child becomes sick or an emergency arises during work hours a manger is
able to leave work to address the problem without loss of pay. An hourly
employee loses that pay when absent from work.
Like workers, small business is in the crosshairs of the rule change. As reported on Market Watch:
An official at the U.S. Small Businesses
Administration said the Department of Labor underestimated what its new
overtime rules would cost small businesses.
“There are a lot of unintended
consequences,” said Janis Reyes, assistant chief counsel at the Small
Businesses Administration’s advocacy office.
Small business owners may have to increase
managers’ salaries, hire and train new part-time employees, and lower
rent, among other changes, to avoid overtime costs, she said.
In addition, salaried employees could lose
benefits such as health care by being forced to transition to hourly
employee status, she said.
The DOL’s one-size-fits-all change to the minimum salary threshold
also fails to take into account the vast difference in cost of living
around the country. For example, in New York City the increase may not
be devastating, but it could drive a small business owner in rural
Arkansas out of business or result in layoffs.
Everyone can get behind the idea of helping workers who are
struggling to get by. However, the proposed overtime rule does more harm
than good, if any good at all. Imposing greater costs on businesses
results in cuts somewhere, often by reducing wages or creating less
jobs. As my colleague Wayne Crews
often notes, “You don’t have to tell the grass to grow—you just need to
take the rocks off of the grass.” The time has come for us to take the
rocks off of the U.S. economy."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.