Pay threshold for managers to rise to 50K

[cranberry]

In the newspaper industry, people who are eligible for overtime (whether by law or union contract) have always been pushed or taken it upon themselves to work for free. Why do we think this is going to change?

Yep. News people have always been their own worst enemies.

 

[Spartan Squad]

I don't think the worker's title means anything. Right now, you can be automatically exempted from OT as long as you make in the low $20,000s. This raises that to above $50,000.

They can still pay shirtty salaries, but they can only avoid paying OT by not allowing those employees to work OT.

Yeah, it doesn't so much matter what you make, it's your duties. You can't just claim someone is exempt from OT because you pay them twice minimum wage, they either have to be a supervisor (however you gussy it up), on commission or within the limited number of fields exempt from overtime (newspaper reporters I believe are among them*).

*to clarify, I believe so long as the reporter meets the salary threshold—2x minimum wage in CA—they can be exempt. I could be wrong, though.

 

[doctorquant]

The board's awe at the power of the Presidential pen in such matters is amusing ...

To use Baron's example ...

If XYZ's paying $24K for 60 hours from a "manager," that's what those 60 hours are worth to XYZ. XYZ is going to get 60 hours worth of work ... it'll just be from more than one person. And, here's a news flash ... XYZ isn't going to be paying more than $24K for those hours.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The board's awe at the power of the Presidential pen in such matters is amusing ...

To use Baron's example ...

If XYZ's paying $24K for 60 hours from a "manager," that's what those 60 hours are worth to XYZ. XYZ is going to get 60 hours worth of work ... it'll just be from more than one person. And, here's a news flash ... XYZ isn't going to be paying more than $24K for those hours.

Which means A. A part-time job will be available for someone else and B. The "manager", if they so desire, will be able to take a part-time job themselves and make up,the difference, or even make more.

If XYZ decides to cut the "manager's" pay by 1/3 to reflect the reduced hours to 40 a week, the "manager" would only be making $16K a year, or roughly slightly less than $8 an hour. Which, in some states now, is below their minimum wage, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'll keep to the pay rate for now.

So now the "manager" either wants, or needs to make up their salary, so they find a 20-hour a week job on top of their FT job, at say $9 an hour. That's $180 a week, or roughly $9K a year, assuming two weeks off for whatever. So now, they're making the $16K at their 40-hour a week job, and $9K at their 20-hour a week job. They're now making $25K a year for working the same hours, instead of $24K.

 

[Ace]

The board's awe at the power of the Presidential pen in such matters is amusing ...

To use Baron's example ...

If XYZ's paying $24K for 60 hours from a "manager," that's what those 60 hours are worth to XYZ. XYZ is going to get 60 hours worth of work ... it'll just be from more than one person. And, here's a news flash ... XYZ isn't going to be paying more than $24K for those hours.

You live in a crappy, bottom-line world, Quant.

It's not what it is worth to XYZ -- it is what XYZ can get by paying. It's cheaper to pay one guy $30,000 to do that job than hire two people to work 30 hours.

 

[The Big Ragu]

You live in a bottom-line world, too, Ace.

What XYZ "can get by paying" is a function of supply and demand. It's just as much a function of what an employee of XYZ can get XYZ to pay for a job as it is what XYZ can get an employee to accept.

How is it cheaper to pay one person $30K than to pay two people $30K? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[cjericho]

No. You have to have some kind of managerial duties or be some kind of expert/trainer.

At McD's? show up on time and not as baked as those you manage?

 

[Ace]

You live in a bottom-line world, too, Ace.

What XYZ "can get by paying" is a function of supply and demand. It's just as much a function of what an employee of XYZ can get XYZ to pay for a job as it is what XYZ can get an employee to accept.

How is it cheaper to pay one person $30K than to pay two people $30K? That doesn't make sense to me.

I am saying in the long run it is cheaper to give that manager the OT and pay him say $30,000 a year to work his 50-60 hours than it is to hire two people to work 25-30 hours a week at $15,000 an hour.

Even though they would have meager benefits, the costs of having two people in that job -- and to have to train new people twice as often -- would not be worth it.

 

[Ace]

At McD's? show up on time and not as baked as those you manage?

No. Like scheduling employees or having the experience to explain to coworkers that putting your hand in the hot grease is a bad idea.

 

[Ace]

You live in a bottom-line world, too, Ace.

What XYZ "can get by paying" is a function of supply and demand. It's just as much a function of what an employee of XYZ can get XYZ to pay for a job as it is what XYZ can get an employee to accept.

How is it cheaper to pay one person $30K than to pay two people $30K? That doesn't make sense to me.

How is it that the bottom-level workers in society live in such a clear supply-and-demand world and the executives don't? You really have to pay the CEO of Gannett $12 million to do that job? Someone just as qualified wouldn't do it for $11 million or even $1 million?

Why doesn't supply and demand work on the other end?

 

[cranberry]

If XYZ's paying $24K for 60 hours from a "manager," that's what those 60 hours are worth to XYZ. XYZ is going to get 60 hours worth of work ... it'll just be from more than one person. And, here's a news flash ... XYZ isn't going to be paying more than $24K for those hours.

Doubtful. The National Association of Retailers and other lobbying groups are already complaining the rule will drive up payroll costs. But if you're right...

a) At least there won't be a "manager" getting paid less than minimum wage for a 60-hour week anymore.
b) There are costs associated with hiring and training an additional part-timer that XYZ must incur.
c) The new part-time worker(s) will have minimum-wage level skills/experience.

I think it's going to be pretty tight (and some places impossible) for a company trying to legally get 60 hours of work out of two people for $24K.

But, bottom line, I guarantee more (not an equal amount or less) money will be transferred from companies to workers under the rule, so the middle class wins.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I am saying in the long run it is cheaper to give that manager the OT and pay him say $30,000 a year to work his 50-60 hours than it is to hire two people to work 25-30 hours a week at $15,000 an hour.

Even though they would have meager benefits, the costs of having two people in that job -- and to have to train new people twice as often -- would not be worth it.

I don't quite understand the math on that. In this theoretical situation, you have your choice of paying one person $30K or two people each $15K. Why is one "more expensive," somehow, than the other?