Judge blocks Obama's attempt to require overtime pay for millions of Americans

anatta

100% recycled karma
Texas judge blocked President Obama’s bid to expand overtime pay protections to millions of Americans on Tuesday, thwarting a key presidential priority just days before it was to take effect.

The Labor Department rule doubles the salary level at which hourly workers must be paid extra for overtime pay, applying the requirement to anyone making up to $47,476 annually.
U.S. District Court Judge Amos L. Mazzant III sided with Nevada and 20 other states in their bid to halt the rule, and he incorporated a similar legal challenge from a coalition of business groups including the Chamber of Commerce into his ruling.

The ruling also dealt a late blow to Obama’s effort to build a legacy based largely on his use of executive power. He moved without Congress on climate, immigration and foreign policy, gambling that his successor would preserve his actions. Donald Trump’s election all but guaranteed that much of Obama’s work will be undone. Much of the legal opposition to Obama took root in Texas; the state has sued the administration more than 45 times and its attorney general co-led the overtime lawsuit.

The overtime rule, finalized in May, represented the first such increase in more than a decade. It was hailed at the time as the most consequential action the Obama administration could take for middle-class workers without congressional involvement.

Plaintiffs, though, argued the Labor Department acted beyond its authority under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was the basis for the change.

Mazzant agreed, saying that the department has leeway to define which employees are eligible for overtime pay based on the duties they perform, but not the salary level.

Retail and fast-food businesses especially had warned the move would backfire, by leading employers to slash workers' hours. But supporters, including Democrats in Congress, predicted that workers would either raise employee salaries or hire more part- and full-time workers to prevent having to pay a higher hourly rate.

The Labor Department said it was considering its legal options, including an appeal of the ruling.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-overtime-rule-blocked-20161122-story.html
 
Good news for small businesses who this would be punitive for
It looks like Obama was trying to define Congressional intent ( what exact salary level) -but i'm not sure what this reference is all about:

U.S. District Court Judge Amos L. Mazzant III sided with Nevada and 20 other states in their bid to halt the rule, and he incorporated a similar legal challenge from a coalition of business groups including the Chamber of Commerce into his ruling.
 
I see it as all the parties bidding to halt the rule...Nevada + 20 other states + a business group coalition + the Chamber of Commerce
 
You don't think people should get more money for putting in more hours?

This is about gov't overstepping its boundaries and what sounds good on paper would end up having a negative effect on both businesses and workers as they try to comply. It would drive down wages and hours worked as businesses find ways to work around it. It would force many salaried workers into an hourly position even if it's not what they want. Certain flexibility workers enjoyed would now be gone.

So it's not about thinking workers shouldn't get paid for working more hours. It's about legislation that would have far more negative (unintended) consequences
 
did I read it right? If the pay is less than 47K a year you gotta pay double for overtime instead of the usual time-and-a-half?
 
what I dont get is what is stopping the States who want this like CA or NY from implementing it already? Why does it have to be done on a federal level? By executive order no less.
 
Back
Top