• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pay threshold for managers to rise to 50K

If you believe the company can survive with fewer workers, I suppose that's true. My observation is that most of the companies we see in this income equation are staffed to the minimum and don't have a lot of flex to reduce overall labor hours.
 
The hypothetical was a 60-hour workweek ... of which 20 hours were compensated at a regular rate rather than an overtime rate. At a constant hourly rate, that works out to $8.33 an hour. In a 40-at-regular time and 20-at-overtime setup (which is what you and others are saying it should be), that would translate to a regular-time rate of $7.14.
When that manager looks at his or her paycheck, it reads Pay Rate: $13.00 hr; Hours: 40.
 
If you believe the company can survive with fewer workers, I suppose that's true. My observation is that most of the companies we see in this income equation are staffed to the minimum and don't have a lot of flex to reduce overall labor hours.

They won't reduce hours or workers. All they'll do is change the way the accounting goes.
 
I still say the hypothetical 26K assistant manager who is required to work an average of 60 hours a week wins if he/she is limited to 40 hours (even if pay is slightly decreased).

That way our hypothetical manager can clock overtime or get another part-time job.

Some places really abuse these people.
 
When that manager looks at his or her paycheck, it reads Pay Rate: $13.00 hr; Hours: 40.

Actually it reads Pay Rate: $12.50 hr; Hours: 40. And it also reads: Total Gross: $500

But you think that manager is going to get a paycheck that reads this way:

RT Hours: 40 RT Rate: $7.13
OT Hours: 20 OT Rate: $10.71
Total Gross: $500

And feel like his/her compensation went down?

To believe that, you have to believe that the manager is fixated on one and only number ... the hourly rate. You have to believe that he/she is wholly ignorant of the number of hours he/she works.
 
Then they risk losing the employee who suddenly sees a huge pay decrease (if a nominal one for the time being). Good employees do have options.

Or have less motivated employees. And if employees leave, companies will need to find and train new employees who, by definition, weren't the company's first choice. Costs to consider.
 
No, that manager is going to see "I'm only making $7.13? Shoot, I can go make $10 here!" So it becomes either a raise (based on continuing to work 60 hours at the other place) or a lifestyle bump (based on making the same money in only 40 hours).
 
Actually it reads Pay Rate: $12.50 hr; Hours: 40. And it also reads: Total Gross: $500

But you think that manager is going to get a paycheck that reads this way:

RT Hours: 40 RT Rate: $7.13
OT Hours: 20 OT Rate: $10.71
Total Gross: $500

And feel like his/her compensation went down?

To believe that, you have to believe that the manager is fixated on one and only number ... the hourly rate. You have to believe that he/she is wholly ignorant of the number of hours he/she works.
Actually, it would read:
RT Hours: 40 RT Rate: $7.25 (federal minimum wage)
OT Hours: 20 OT Rate $10.88
Total Gross: $507.5

And I have absolutely no doubt that most salaried workers who put in more than 40 hours per week without punching a clock are ignorant of how many hours they actually work.
 
Last edited:
Bowing out because I'm tired of arguing this. To sum up:

1) I predict there will be little to no effect.
2) Y'all are predicting there will be a substantial effect.

That about it? Oh wait, one last thing ...

3) I am right.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top