Latest on overtime bill in Congress
August 20, 2003See FindLaw Legal News story (from Reuters): “Overtime Pay Faces Showdown in Congress”.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce “says the changes are needed to update antiquated federal work rules.”
The AFL-CIO says “the notion of going forward with this change is simply counter intuitive” to the sluggish economy because “this change would discourage job creation by allowing companies to make workers work longer hours without additional pay and increase worker insecurity.”
Who is right? IMHO, they both are.
Certainly the law in this area is antiquated, needlessly complex, ill-understood, and frequently violated, and all would benefit from clarification and simplification.
But it certainly is also true that working employees longer hours can be a substitute for hiring more employees, and that the overtime premium requirement is intended to deter the extensive use of overtime. So to the extent fewer employees are entitled to overtime pay, the use of overtime as a substitute for hiring will increase, with a negative impact on overall employment.
An important factor preventing the overtime premium from having the desired deterrent effect is healthcare (and other benefit) costs. Why? Employers will willingly pay significant amounts of overtime rather than hire new employees because of the high costs of benefits associated with having more employees on payroll.
Related Posts
Senate passes Democratic amendment halting proposed expansion of overtime exemptions
Reducing Long Hours Worked by Restaurant Managers
Survey on employer health care costs and trends
The New Overtime Pay Regs: What Are Employees Asking?
More overtime litigation; this time against Hertz for misclassifying managers as exempt
`Sphere: Related Content`
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.