Pay threshold for managers to rise to 50K

Right now a business can require an employee who is deemed some type of manager and makes as little as 26K a year to work 60-70 hours a week, and that's legal.

Going forward, they run the risk of the wage and hour folks making their lives miserable if they pull that.

So if nothing else happens, I can be pleased that the lowly assistant manager will have some juice with the feds.

 

There will be an increase in compliance costs (as firms do what they do to ensure they don't run afoul of the feds). Out of whose pocket do you think that will that come?

 

In theory, perhaps. In the real world, not a fucking chance.

 

I have dreaded and at times openly resisted becoming the sports editor at my shop even though I've been doing the work of one for the past two years. I once even turned down a promotion to an assistant news editor slot.
The reason?
Money.
I reasoned that if they make me the "sports editor" it's going to come with the same amount of work and, at best, a couple thousand dollars per year raise -- and a salary. If I stay as a "sports writer," I get to remain hourly and at least get paid for working all of the overtime. If I don't work a minute of overtime all year, my base salary is in the low 30s.
Each of the past two years, the overtime has amounted to about $10,000 per year. It'll be less this year because they've been limiting me to about 45 hours per week, but at least with that I get some of my life back and a day or two off every week and can play the hours card if they want me to do something beyond that. If I'd have taken the promotion and the salary, I'd have cost myself probably $6,000 to $7,000 per year and maybe more.
With the new law, that shouldn't happen. A promotion and a raise will actually mean a promotion and a raise, not a promotion and a pay cut.

 

For one thing, the RT rate has to be at least $7.25 an hour. And in 26 of 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, the minimum wage is at least $8 an hour.

You are also not accounting for the manager having greater responsibility than the rest of the workers. Besides the lines on the resume, why would a manager want to put up with more responsibility when they're getting paid the same as the employees they are supervising?

 

I ain't addressing state-specific hypotheticals.

 

On its own, think it will help some folks and hurt very, very few people, which makes it worthwhile. Basically, not a huge effect, as you say (I wasn't clear that was your premise, which is why I asked for clarification earlier - wasn't sure if you were among those who think it will hurt businesses), on its own.

However, I do think the federal minimum wage will rise above $10/hr within the next four years, and thus, it will have a rather significant effect. Taking the examples we used above, the paycheck of that hypothetical $26k/year manager would become:
RT Hours: 40 RT Rate: $10.25 (potential federal minimum wage)
OT Hours: 20 OT Rate $15.37
Total Gross: $817.40

That's $42,504.80 per year and, suddenly, you've got a livable wage.

 

BS. All you're doing is shifting a group from non OT eligible to OT eligible, which already exists in the form of those our 26k manager is supervising. There is no added overhead cost.

 

Depending on where you live.

 

Your math is a little bit off. It's $717.40 per week and $37,304.80 per year. Your point still stands. (Sorry I'm a nerd)

 

Yup, you're right. Must have tapped the 8 instead of 7 on the calculator.

 

I will probably be the only person in the world to say that what I do is not worth $50,000 a year in my market.