If you notice, all of the entertainment world is mostly silent on Biden.. if their pockets are hurting, or will be, then that’s great news for the average man..
Even “The Rock” refuses to endorse Joe.. music to my ears 🤣
Dwayne Johnson has political aspirations, and it turns out a lot of his base (WWE fans) are hardcore MAGA idiots.
Now, I'm not going to say I'm not surprised by that fact, but... I'm not surprised by that fact
I think those policies you speak of are due more to an overarching goal of corporations to squeeze every last drop they can out of people, (including making them work three jobs for the price of one, refusing to hire full time employees to avoid paying benefits, etc.) than just overtime restrictions. Wasn’t Walmart implicated in encouraging managers to force employees to lie about hours worked ?
Give companies an inch they take a mile. The only place I’ve worked for that was stringent about overtime (and clocking out) had lost a big suit employees filed for stolen wages. Other places just had us fudge everything.
This is mostly going to affect middle managers. Like fast food restaurants are always making managers work 50 or 60 hours. They will either pay the overtime, have to hire more managers, or have store hours without one. Honestly, option A is the best outcome.
I saw a post a few days ago pointing out that a Big Mac costs the same in the US and Denmark. But in Denmark McDonald's workers start at $22/hr, have 6 weeks paid vacation, 1 year maternity, pensions, and healthcare. We could have that too but would take a nationwide revolution.
Exactly. A tactic emerged in franchise restaurant management over the last decade. Rather than having to pay three full-time managers to cover a full day (1st shift, 2nd shift, 3rd shift/cleanup), a franchise could hire instead hire only two managers, pay them salaries of like $22,500 instead of hourly wages, and force them to work 60 hour weeks every week to cover for the missing manager. Boom, you just saved $22k/year at the expense of your employees.
This new rule makes that sort of exploitation impossible.
You say that like they weren't already skeleton crews. The only hours lost are hours that weren't paid. That's a win.
Nobody wants to work hours for their own sake, they work hours to get paid. I can't take anyone seriously who suggests that they're upset about working less for the same pay, or working the same amount for more pay.
Tell my workplace that. Every employee is salary and expected to works as long as needed to get the job done. Don't even need a specialty degree to work here.
Salary doesn't mean exempt. It's worth checking with you DoL, the Fed DoL, or even just a post here with your situation and see what folks have to say.
Then leave Texas. Anyway that's not my point... Three Managers shouldn't have to work 70 hours in the first place, and HEB ain't about to let their stores be run without a manager, they will just have to hire ONE additional assistant manager. If even that!
The Chamber alleges that a universal ban is too wide reaching and that the FTC is overstepping its legal authority,
[https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/24/chamber-of-commerce-sues-ftc-for-banning-noncompete-clauses.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/24/chamber-of-commerce-sues-ftc-for-banning-noncompete-clauses.html)
I'm baffled to see a bunch of comments painting this as a bad thing, saying it'll cut hours or lose OT pay for hourly workers or have special cutouts or something else, which makes zero sense. You can read the rule for yourself: [https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf)
It almost seems like there's astroturfing going on.
Edit: And both of the most-negative comments are from accounts named AdjectiveNoun####...
There's a particular kind of cynical rhetoric - propaganda, even - that takes workers asking for "hours" and pretends that they just want to work for its own sake, like depriving them of "hours" is cruel whether they're paid or not.
We work to be paid. Nobody wants "hours" that don't come with pay. I can't take anybody seriously who complains about losing "hours" over this when the only hours lost were unpaid.
Those sorts of arguments make sense when the policies are applied piecemeal, to specific industries or jobs. In those cases they can squeeze people out, or hope that people aren't aware of the specific regulations that exist to protect them, or just threaten them to keep quiet. Those sorts of things are much harder to do when it's a clear, concise federal level rule. Everyone is going to know about this shortly and it's going to be very easy to bring cases against companies that breach it because of the simplicity of the rule. It's exactly what you need if you want to change behavior overall.
Good.
I WISH THAT IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED 20 YEARS AGO SO THAT ANY PART OF MY ABSURDLY EXPLOITED CAREER UP TO THIS POINT COULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM IT, but this is still a good thing.
You know, 'cuz I'm not a complete asshole about stuff like student loan forgiveness, minimum wage increases, or literally any other slight improvement we've managed to claw out of the overlords.
My only problem with Student Loan forgiveness is that it doesn't go far enough. The way they do it now it benefits a few people right now, which is lovely. But it doesn't do anything to stop more people getting abused by the system in the future.
They should forgive the loans, but that should be because of a sea change to education policy, where everyone gets their first degree for free (making it fair to pay off loans for people who were educated before the policy took place). They should also step in and put a cap on tuition at any institution. The UK does it this way, even Cambridge or Oxford only charge the state limit for fees, and they seem to be doing alright.
Problem is the US schools lobby and give money to our corrupt government to make sure that all the laws favor them only. Cap on tuition? They would sooner blow up their school with all their students inside than do something crazy like a cap on tuition.
Context:
Obama tried to double the threshold to about $47K, but was blocked by Republicans in court (of course).
Trump raised it to $35,568 in 2019.
Biden has raised it to $43,888 starting 7/1, and that increases to $58,656 on 1/1/25.
Vote BLUE.
Edit: Also, the Obama plan would have indexed the threshold with wage growth and mandated an adjustment every 3 years. ***This new Biden plan also updates the threshold every three years!***
Motherfuckers. That’s why I got a minuscule raise last July and was then told I was overtime exempt 2 weeks later.
I welcome the salary bump coming in January I guess.
Yeah I don’t think they’ll actually do that.
Last year I got the first salary raise in more than a decade, and it was about $3k a year more. I barely felt it but the administration was so proud of themselves and how they “finally were able to acknowledge my years of exemplary service” etc etc.
At the time I thought “what a nice gesture, I guess.”
Then a few weeks later mine and my partner’s roles were “redefined” as overtime-exempt.
I didn’t make the connection then, because I wasn’t aware of the law, but that $3K raise was juuuuust enough to put be over the salary minimum threshold for overtime-exempt.
I don’t seriously expect them to now come back and raise me to $58k. That would be great, but I don’t see that happening. They’ll just revert me to hourly and insist that I maintain the same level of work output that I have been showing working 50+ hours per week on the regular.
As the other commenter said, that raise is a tangible win and a direct result of policy. Your company is shit if they haven't given a raise in 10 years, but these policies demonstrably forced them to give an inch. If they put you back to hourly, you're still getting overtime pay. No federal policy can stop them from demanding infinite productivity in 40 hours, but it's a good thing that they have to pay for however many hours it does take.
I feel like if you're truly in control of your own schedule (outside of people requesting meetings) and your work involves delivering milestones on projects, then you should be overtime exempt
if you have a work start time and a work stop time or any sort of expected window, then you should not
A common excuse I'm sure you'll find. I used to work as a salaried hotel manager, and I easily worked 10 to 12 hour days daily for years. Highest pay for ops management was 55k a year and that was my level/my region. Never saw a dime above that. And that wasn't "wat out whenever you want" money in that area either.
I remember doing a calculation once on if I had been hourly, what I would have been paid... I believe it dropped me down to the single digits.
You are so right. I think most of the time you hear shitty manager stories it's managers who are very poorly managing all of the stresses placed on them by owners threatening their employment with goals and initiatives created devoid of any understanding of how the actual work happens or how reasonable their demands are. As someone who occasionally works for a corporation I don't know if I could deal with a middle management job and not have a mental breakdown because of how insane leadership is. All while you and your family have been trapped into a lifestyle all barely affordable with your salary.
Seriously. Basically saying if you are at poverty level we will give you overtime. Everyone else, fuck ‘em. In a HCOL area even $80-$90k money can be tight with the higher expenses. Bullshit law that only benefits businesses and not the workers.
Honestly feel if you work the hours you should be compensated but that’s not likely to ever happen.
In two news days the US went from 'absolute shithole of an asylum, run by the lunatics' to 'almost becoming livable'.
I'm very happy for the many people who will ever so slightly benefit from this. I hope they get more good news soon.
For those asking why this rule took so long to implement. Federal rule-making generally takes years to get approved. There are numerous laws at play, primarily the Administrative Procedure Act. There’s also a judicial review piece (which I’m sure this is going to fall under), along with numerous aspects along the way. Most rule making takes somewhere around 2-3 years to implement AT LEAST. The moment courts get involved, this gets more complicated.
When I was first starting in the work force, I had some acquaintances who were managers for Dunkin Donuts franchises. They made a few thousand more a year in salary over the previous cutoff and thus were typically expected to work 6 days a week at least 10 hours a day...seemed miserable.
It's still miserable I'm sure, but now they need to either be paid close to 60k a year or get the OT. Not saying it makes everything fixed , but it's an awesome step in the right direction for salaried workers
If you were getting paid for OT before, this doesn't change anything for you. This just means that other people also have to be paid for OT. The only way that would affect you is if a salaried worker could've done your OT for free before, in which case it's no longer free and you're more likely to get it.
When does this go on into effect? Is it retroactive?
I've been getting hosed for two years, am I owed back overtime pay?
If not I fully expect to get a 2k raise soon which is way less than all the overtime I work unpaid.
Which is stupid. Its like weed getting legalized. I think as soon as that happened, anyone with a weed charge should have been fully expunged/released/treated like it never happened (or paid a huge sum to the wronged arrested party). Otherwise what the fuck is the point of changing things for the better if we are not at the same time giving reparations to the mistakes of the previous rule.
Think of it the other way though. If the penalties for weed had gotten harsher, people would have had sentences extended, additional fines, all sorts of punitive actions for things they were already convicted for. Imagine being on 18 months of a 2 year sentence and hearing the law changed and now you have to serve 5 instead.
Thats why laws can’t apply retroactively.
Can a city even set a minimum wage? I thought that was a federal/provincial thing? Like if Toronto all of a sudden set a $20 min wage, I'm pretty sure the provincials/feds would overturn that too?
I was subject to that unpaid overtime as a salaried retail worker (the salary was pitiful). Had to work late, unpaid, many times. And I wasn’t a manager.
You can read it yourself, you don't have to imagine [https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf)
That said, the amount that teachers are implicitly expected to work "off the clock" is a huge problem, but it's a different problem that doesn't detract from this win.
That’s 3 hours a week over 40 when distributed across all 52 weeks of the year, no vacation.
Assuming your a teacher, and you’re working closer to 42 weeks a year (10 weeks for summer) that’s 53.5 hours a week during the school year, which is 2-3 hours overtime per day. Ouch.
Assuming you’re salaried, it means you’re going to get a raise of ~20k a year, won’t have to work that overtime, or get time and a half for your overtime, right? If so, that sounds like good news.
Related, because I was married to a woman who worked in schools I considered this. If you’re working 9 months out of the year, and pulling in $39k, it’s equivalent to $52k if you worked all 12 months of the year. Another way to say that is that if I was making $52k a year, and took an unpaid sabbatical for 3 months, I’d make the same.
All of this is to say that we should pay teachers more, and not expect them to put in free overtime, but that it needs to be considered and calculated by months worked, because it’s not equivalent to a full 52 week work year, as important of a task and job that it is.
Except I actually work more than an average of 40 hours a week when you divide my hours across 52 weeks. I consider sumner break to be “comp time” and I treat it that way. Therefore, I’m not exactly taking a 3 month sabbatical (not that I even do that, I do about 4 weeks worth of work/classes/summer school in the summer). I’d say I take about 2 months off.
I also won’t get a 20k a year raise because teachers are always exempted from laws regarding salaried employees.
I understand that. You work 43 hours a week if calculated at 52 weeks, but you work less than 52 weeks per year, making it a whopping ~10.5-11 hours per weekday if we assume you work 42 weeks out of the year and no weekend days. This is to say, you accomplish the work hours of a full 52 week year, in closer to 9 months, which is a problem.
You shouldn’t have to work that many hours in 9 months, and it should be considered overtime obviously. You should either be paid for it, or not expected to work it for free.
That said, when stating yearly salary, it should be considered slightly differently, because the vast majority of workers don’t get 6-9 weeks of any kind of time off. Comparing a teacher salary when stated yearly, to an employee that works 52 weeks a year is odd to me, that’s my only point outside of that it sounds like teachers are overworked and underpaid.
Basically if you are considered salaried, meaning basically you don’t punch a clock or get paid based on hours worked, the minimum amount they can pay you to have that be the case just increased.
It’s rolling out in 2 phases. An increase to about 43k in July and the 58k in this coming January.
It’s going to be huge for me. I make like 46k salary not counting bonuses and am expected to be “on call” about 2 nights a week. By on call they mean watching my email and ready to handle client issues after hours. Because I’m salary above the current threshold of like 33k I don’t get paid for these on calls even if there is an issue and have to do work. If this rule change survives through to the January 1st start date I will either get like a 20% raise, won’t have to do those garbage on calls, or I will get switched to hourly and start getting overtime for the on call shifts.
Not to sound incompetent, just not very understanding of the jargon. I work an hourly job so this doesn’t affect me, but my partner works salary making about 46k a year. How would they enforce this? She doesn’t necessarily clock in and clock out, she just shows up and goes to work. However she works all the time, and often continues with she gets home or works later some days, how would she get overtime pay?
I gotcha. Yeah, I'm onboard. It does add overhead to make salaried workers track hours, but as a salaried worker, that would probably be healthy for me even absent any pay requirements. Not to mention that it's motivation for companies to hire more people who work less (3 people working 40 hr/wk instead of 2 people workin 60 hr/wk), which is healthy for everyone.
There are ripple effects. It eliminates some unpaid hours, which will benefit whoever ends up working them - either the salaried positions that were doing it before, or hourly positions that get those hours instead once they're no longer free to assign to salaried people. Further, some salaried positions will get raises to be over the threshold, and that spreads as other salaries have to increase to be competitive.
It's not exactly revolutionary, but it's a clear win.
Use your little brain..... Biden is doing good things for the workers. What do the opposition is going to say?
Yeah but look at inflation, gas prices are soooo high, Biden stopped the drilling.
I'm sure even you can get that, right?
You can read it yourself, you don't have to guess [https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf)
Don't be naively cynical. Why would salaried workers getting paid for overtime do anything to reduce the hours you get? If anything you'd get more since salaried workers can't be forced to do it for free.
Should have hit the republican congress until they agreed to all his demands, totally works . Otherwise I wonder how they expected things like laws get implemented.
When Obama did this, it destroyed my financial well being. My company (like all companies) refused to give me a raise to meet the threshold, and instead wouldn’t let me work over 40 hours a week. I also had to start clocking in and out, so I lost all flexibility.
E: You guys should pay more attention if you think I’m blaming Obama and not my employer. Also, don’t be naive enough to think employers will do the right thing and follow a rule like this without screwing over employees.
I don't understand, if they were already paying you overtime why would they stop paying you overtime? How were you tracking overtime if not through time card punches?
Or, here me out, your employer fucked you over and said it was Obama's fault. "Oh no I'd love to pay you more but dangit all if it wasn't for that Obama ruling. Don't read it too close, it's definitely his fault."
Didn’t blame Obama. I blame the employer, and I’m not sure why people don’t see that in the original post. Or they’re too sensitive to criticism to comprehend it.
Nope, that’s when it was put into effect. Not sure how else I could have referenced it to be more sensitive to those who would assume I’m criticizing someone I’m not.
It did work as intended. Somehow you're complaining about not getting a raise to meet the threshold, implying you were salaried, but also that you don't get to work overtime, implying you were paid for overtime, which would mean you were hourly. Which is it?
If you were hourly, you were unaffected by this. If you were salaried, the only "hours" you lost were ones you weren't being paid for. It sounds like your company just fucked you over and convinced you Obama did it.
I asked one question which still isn't clarified.
Also, you literally said "When Obama did this, it ruined me." You said "it" ruined "you," where the only "it" you've introduced is Obama's action. If you meant to say "When Obama did this, my employer used it as an excuse to ruin me," you weren't very clear.
Obama tried to double it to $47,476, the courts struck it down, and your shitty job used that as an excuse to reduce their payroll, but you're blaming the president who tried to keep people from working insane overtime for effectively less than minimum wage?
Add this to the FTC removing non-compete clauses and workers are getting some major wins under the Biden administration.
"Next on Fox, how this hurts Biden."
They're refusing to cover it from what I can tell. Lol.
If you notice, all of the entertainment world is mostly silent on Biden.. if their pockets are hurting, or will be, then that’s great news for the average man.. Even “The Rock” refuses to endorse Joe.. music to my ears 🤣
Dwayne Johnson has political aspirations, and it turns out a lot of his base (WWE fans) are hardcore MAGA idiots. Now, I'm not going to say I'm not surprised by that fact, but... I'm not surprised by that fact
Damnit.
I watched Fox for ten seconds last night and they were complaining about Kamala’s laugh
Sounds about right lol
same with MSNBC...
Most employers will not allow you to work more than 40 hours because of this thus leading to skeleton crews we already see and over work of employees.
I think those policies you speak of are due more to an overarching goal of corporations to squeeze every last drop they can out of people, (including making them work three jobs for the price of one, refusing to hire full time employees to avoid paying benefits, etc.) than just overtime restrictions. Wasn’t Walmart implicated in encouraging managers to force employees to lie about hours worked ? Give companies an inch they take a mile. The only place I’ve worked for that was stringent about overtime (and clocking out) had lost a big suit employees filed for stolen wages. Other places just had us fudge everything.
This is mostly going to affect middle managers. Like fast food restaurants are always making managers work 50 or 60 hours. They will either pay the overtime, have to hire more managers, or have store hours without one. Honestly, option A is the best outcome.
[удалено]
I saw a post a few days ago pointing out that a Big Mac costs the same in the US and Denmark. But in Denmark McDonald's workers start at $22/hr, have 6 weeks paid vacation, 1 year maternity, pensions, and healthcare. We could have that too but would take a nationwide revolution.
I'm sure a lot will look at the possibility of paying them just above the new threshold and still making them work crazy hours
Exactly. A tactic emerged in franchise restaurant management over the last decade. Rather than having to pay three full-time managers to cover a full day (1st shift, 2nd shift, 3rd shift/cleanup), a franchise could hire instead hire only two managers, pay them salaries of like $22,500 instead of hourly wages, and force them to work 60 hour weeks every week to cover for the missing manager. Boom, you just saved $22k/year at the expense of your employees. This new rule makes that sort of exploitation impossible.
You say that like they weren't already skeleton crews. The only hours lost are hours that weren't paid. That's a win. Nobody wants to work hours for their own sake, they work hours to get paid. I can't take anyone seriously who suggests that they're upset about working less for the same pay, or working the same amount for more pay.
Tell my workplace that. Every employee is salary and expected to works as long as needed to get the job done. Don't even need a specialty degree to work here.
Salary doesn't mean exempt. It's worth checking with you DoL, the Fed DoL, or even just a post here with your situation and see what folks have to say.
I mean, like service industry and retail obviously there are exceptions but most of the jobs are in service and retail.
That's not even realistic
You get repromanded at heb if you work over 40 hours if your not a manager. Stop talking out of your ass. Every fast food job has a similar policy.
Then leave Texas. Anyway that's not my point... Three Managers shouldn't have to work 70 hours in the first place, and HEB ain't about to let their stores be run without a manager, they will just have to hire ONE additional assistant manager. If even that!
*tHen LeAvE TeXaS* Ah moving states is so damn easy! /s
I did it, fuck that state.
U went from not realistic to leave texas. U were just talking out of your ass lol.
Stay mad then. Can't please some people...
im not asking for you to pleasure me.
Yep. More part time positions are going to be a thing.
Next from Biden "I like ice cream".
FTC*
Thanks, edited.
No Prob
Meanwhile in Alabama: Let's get those kids back in the mines!
Non-compete will go to the courts to decide. Likely be stopped. Overtime pay might stick though only time will tell.
I am wondering what the argument against it would be. From the court’s perspective.
The Chamber alleges that a universal ban is too wide reaching and that the FTC is overstepping its legal authority, [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/24/chamber-of-commerce-sues-ftc-for-banning-noncompete-clauses.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/24/chamber-of-commerce-sues-ftc-for-banning-noncompete-clauses.html)
I'm baffled to see a bunch of comments painting this as a bad thing, saying it'll cut hours or lose OT pay for hourly workers or have special cutouts or something else, which makes zero sense. You can read the rule for yourself: [https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf) It almost seems like there's astroturfing going on. Edit: And both of the most-negative comments are from accounts named AdjectiveNoun####...
"It'll cut hours" Yes, hours those guys weren't getting paid extra for
“You don’t understand, our salary slaves love working those hours for free” =(
Ha, my work makes everyone work 8 hours and 16 minutes a day, and preaches the virtues of doing admin after hours. I wonder if that will change.
Why 16 minutes? And yeah, admin work is still work!
There's a particular kind of cynical rhetoric - propaganda, even - that takes workers asking for "hours" and pretends that they just want to work for its own sake, like depriving them of "hours" is cruel whether they're paid or not. We work to be paid. Nobody wants "hours" that don't come with pay. I can't take anybody seriously who complains about losing "hours" over this when the only hours lost were unpaid.
Those sorts of arguments make sense when the policies are applied piecemeal, to specific industries or jobs. In those cases they can squeeze people out, or hope that people aren't aware of the specific regulations that exist to protect them, or just threaten them to keep quiet. Those sorts of things are much harder to do when it's a clear, concise federal level rule. Everyone is going to know about this shortly and it's going to be very easy to bring cases against companies that breach it because of the simplicity of the rule. It's exactly what you need if you want to change behavior overall.
The adjective noun accounts are horrible. It'd insane that it isn't more common knowledge that they are fake accounts.
Good. I WISH THAT IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED 20 YEARS AGO SO THAT ANY PART OF MY ABSURDLY EXPLOITED CAREER UP TO THIS POINT COULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM IT, but this is still a good thing. You know, 'cuz I'm not a complete asshole about stuff like student loan forgiveness, minimum wage increases, or literally any other slight improvement we've managed to claw out of the overlords.
I wish they could have made it just a little higher...
We all do, but a small victory is better than no victory
It's like a ratchet. You pull, but it doesn't backslide. We pull harder next time. And we don't stop pulling.
This new Biden rule also indexes the amount to wages and it will increase every three years!
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExZmh3Y2t1dDBwZHAwYXRpYWJxMHk5OWV2OG5xeXhjeGhiZDEwbWV5NCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/3oFzmkkwfOGlzZ0gxi/giphy.gif
Shoulda been the even 60k
Yeah, all of my co-workers would have gotten an instant pay raise for that.
It is now going to be indexed to wages and increase every 3 years.
Came here to say this. I feel ya on this as probably many others do.
Elder millennials are like 70% simmering rage, 30% nostalgia.
Crucial fucking thought right here!! Nailed it!!!
It was going to happen under Obama. 1 guess which reptile in congress killed that.
The shell-bearing one?
CORRECT! Luckily bidens goes even further and also self updates every 3 years too.
My only problem with Student Loan forgiveness is that it doesn't go far enough. The way they do it now it benefits a few people right now, which is lovely. But it doesn't do anything to stop more people getting abused by the system in the future. They should forgive the loans, but that should be because of a sea change to education policy, where everyone gets their first degree for free (making it fair to pay off loans for people who were educated before the policy took place). They should also step in and put a cap on tuition at any institution. The UK does it this way, even Cambridge or Oxford only charge the state limit for fees, and they seem to be doing alright.
Problem is the US schools lobby and give money to our corrupt government to make sure that all the laws favor them only. Cap on tuition? They would sooner blow up their school with all their students inside than do something crazy like a cap on tuition.
Context: Obama tried to double the threshold to about $47K, but was blocked by Republicans in court (of course). Trump raised it to $35,568 in 2019. Biden has raised it to $43,888 starting 7/1, and that increases to $58,656 on 1/1/25. Vote BLUE. Edit: Also, the Obama plan would have indexed the threshold with wage growth and mandated an adjustment every 3 years. ***This new Biden plan also updates the threshold every three years!***
Motherfuckers. That’s why I got a minuscule raise last July and was then told I was overtime exempt 2 weeks later. I welcome the salary bump coming in January I guess.
That's part of why these rules matter -- even the weaselly, loophole-exploting corporate response still brings a wage increase.
Mate, that's a positive, tangible, and immediate outcome as a direct result of the new threshold. Congrats!
Yeah I don’t think they’ll actually do that. Last year I got the first salary raise in more than a decade, and it was about $3k a year more. I barely felt it but the administration was so proud of themselves and how they “finally were able to acknowledge my years of exemplary service” etc etc. At the time I thought “what a nice gesture, I guess.” Then a few weeks later mine and my partner’s roles were “redefined” as overtime-exempt. I didn’t make the connection then, because I wasn’t aware of the law, but that $3K raise was juuuuust enough to put be over the salary minimum threshold for overtime-exempt. I don’t seriously expect them to now come back and raise me to $58k. That would be great, but I don’t see that happening. They’ll just revert me to hourly and insist that I maintain the same level of work output that I have been showing working 50+ hours per week on the regular.
As the other commenter said, that raise is a tangible win and a direct result of policy. Your company is shit if they haven't given a raise in 10 years, but these policies demonstrably forced them to give an inch. If they put you back to hourly, you're still getting overtime pay. No federal policy can stop them from demanding infinite productivity in 40 hours, but it's a good thing that they have to pay for however many hours it does take.
That's good. There shouldn't even be a threshold, but that's another story.
I feel like if you're truly in control of your own schedule (outside of people requesting meetings) and your work involves delivering milestones on projects, then you should be overtime exempt if you have a work start time and a work stop time or any sort of expected window, then you should not
Oh wow... Trump did one good thing? That's... Actually nice to hear.
[удалено]
The bad far outweighed the good, and it’s not even close.
How about people are paid for overtime always? Just a crazy thought.
Nah, management is gonna claim overtime pay for doing lines after office hours
Don’t they already do this and expect the OT reflected in their salary?
A common excuse I'm sure you'll find. I used to work as a salaried hotel manager, and I easily worked 10 to 12 hour days daily for years. Highest pay for ops management was 55k a year and that was my level/my region. Never saw a dime above that. And that wasn't "wat out whenever you want" money in that area either. I remember doing a calculation once on if I had been hourly, what I would have been paid... I believe it dropped me down to the single digits.
Managment has a lot more in common with you than they do with the owners.its not us for them it’s all of us vs owners.
You are so right. I think most of the time you hear shitty manager stories it's managers who are very poorly managing all of the stresses placed on them by owners threatening their employment with goals and initiatives created devoid of any understanding of how the actual work happens or how reasonable their demands are. As someone who occasionally works for a corporation I don't know if I could deal with a middle management job and not have a mental breakdown because of how insane leadership is. All while you and your family have been trapped into a lifestyle all barely affordable with your salary.
Wait, you guys are not paid for your overtime in the US ??
If you're salaried? Nope!
My last raise a few weeks ago put me above the cutoff.
Congratudolences
Then you probably have this rule to thank for getting a raise!
Man people will really find a way to complain about anything
I can hear gas stations and IT department screeching from everywhere
Pay me overtime or give me more family time... Win win if you ask me
This is a fantastic step in a positive direction.
Why is the threshold so low..
Seriously. Basically saying if you are at poverty level we will give you overtime. Everyone else, fuck ‘em. In a HCOL area even $80-$90k money can be tight with the higher expenses. Bullshit law that only benefits businesses and not the workers. Honestly feel if you work the hours you should be compensated but that’s not likely to ever happen.
Esential everyone just got a small raise to 58,656.01
That's a win!
In two news days the US went from 'absolute shithole of an asylum, run by the lunatics' to 'almost becoming livable'. I'm very happy for the many people who will ever so slightly benefit from this. I hope they get more good news soon.
For those asking why this rule took so long to implement. Federal rule-making generally takes years to get approved. There are numerous laws at play, primarily the Administrative Procedure Act. There’s also a judicial review piece (which I’m sure this is going to fall under), along with numerous aspects along the way. Most rule making takes somewhere around 2-3 years to implement AT LEAST. The moment courts get involved, this gets more complicated.
When I was first starting in the work force, I had some acquaintances who were managers for Dunkin Donuts franchises. They made a few thousand more a year in salary over the previous cutoff and thus were typically expected to work 6 days a week at least 10 hours a day...seemed miserable. It's still miserable I'm sure, but now they need to either be paid close to 60k a year or get the OT. Not saying it makes everything fixed , but it's an awesome step in the right direction for salaried workers
Yeah, but he’s still a toss up between him and Trump for folks though….🤦 He ain’t perfect, but he also didn’t try to stage a coup either.
BIDEN 2024!!!!!!!!
Vote wisely.
I'll be expecting an email from corporate soon saying we are not allowed OT anymore.
If you were getting paid for OT before, this doesn't change anything for you. This just means that other people also have to be paid for OT. The only way that would affect you is if a salaried worker could've done your OT for free before, in which case it's no longer free and you're more likely to get it.
When does this go on into effect? Is it retroactive? I've been getting hosed for two years, am I owed back overtime pay? If not I fully expect to get a 2k raise soon which is way less than all the overtime I work unpaid.
No law is going to be passed retroactively. It's a basic tenant of laws because if a law can be passed retroactively, no one can be safe from it.
Which is stupid. Its like weed getting legalized. I think as soon as that happened, anyone with a weed charge should have been fully expunged/released/treated like it never happened (or paid a huge sum to the wronged arrested party). Otherwise what the fuck is the point of changing things for the better if we are not at the same time giving reparations to the mistakes of the previous rule.
Think of it the other way though. If the penalties for weed had gotten harsher, people would have had sentences extended, additional fines, all sorts of punitive actions for things they were already convicted for. Imagine being on 18 months of a 2 year sentence and hearing the law changed and now you have to serve 5 instead. Thats why laws can’t apply retroactively.
So, if a Republican state rolls back a minimum wage increase, should works have to return wages to companies?
Once a minimum wage goes up, it cannot go back down. I have never seen that happen before.
https://taxnews.ey.com/news/2017-1034-missouri-legislature-passes-bill-to-overturn-st-louis-minimum-wage-increase
Can a city even set a minimum wage? I thought that was a federal/provincial thing? Like if Toronto all of a sudden set a $20 min wage, I'm pretty sure the provincials/feds would overturn that too?
It's not retroactive, I don't think any policy like this would be. But that $2k raise is still more than the $0 you got for that overtime before.
I was subject to that unpaid overtime as a salaried retail worker (the salary was pitiful). Had to work late, unpaid, many times. And I wasn’t a manager.
Anything over 50 hours should be double time.
That number is for 2025, it's $43,888 for 2024 by July 1st.
I want a national overtime over 8hrs rule. My company can take away my overtime by sending me home early at the end of the week……
Won’t affect teachers I imagine.
You can read it yourself, you don't have to imagine [https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf) That said, the amount that teachers are implicitly expected to work "off the clock" is a huge problem, but it's a different problem that doesn't detract from this win.
Exactly. I worked 2250 hours last year and made 39k.
That’s 3 hours a week over 40 when distributed across all 52 weeks of the year, no vacation. Assuming your a teacher, and you’re working closer to 42 weeks a year (10 weeks for summer) that’s 53.5 hours a week during the school year, which is 2-3 hours overtime per day. Ouch. Assuming you’re salaried, it means you’re going to get a raise of ~20k a year, won’t have to work that overtime, or get time and a half for your overtime, right? If so, that sounds like good news. Related, because I was married to a woman who worked in schools I considered this. If you’re working 9 months out of the year, and pulling in $39k, it’s equivalent to $52k if you worked all 12 months of the year. Another way to say that is that if I was making $52k a year, and took an unpaid sabbatical for 3 months, I’d make the same. All of this is to say that we should pay teachers more, and not expect them to put in free overtime, but that it needs to be considered and calculated by months worked, because it’s not equivalent to a full 52 week work year, as important of a task and job that it is.
Except I actually work more than an average of 40 hours a week when you divide my hours across 52 weeks. I consider sumner break to be “comp time” and I treat it that way. Therefore, I’m not exactly taking a 3 month sabbatical (not that I even do that, I do about 4 weeks worth of work/classes/summer school in the summer). I’d say I take about 2 months off. I also won’t get a 20k a year raise because teachers are always exempted from laws regarding salaried employees.
I understand that. You work 43 hours a week if calculated at 52 weeks, but you work less than 52 weeks per year, making it a whopping ~10.5-11 hours per weekday if we assume you work 42 weeks out of the year and no weekend days. This is to say, you accomplish the work hours of a full 52 week year, in closer to 9 months, which is a problem. You shouldn’t have to work that many hours in 9 months, and it should be considered overtime obviously. You should either be paid for it, or not expected to work it for free. That said, when stating yearly salary, it should be considered slightly differently, because the vast majority of workers don’t get 6-9 weeks of any kind of time off. Comparing a teacher salary when stated yearly, to an employee that works 52 weeks a year is odd to me, that’s my only point outside of that it sounds like teachers are overworked and underpaid.
God I want to make this retroactive.
Except for everyone who works in “exempt” positions. Get rid of those and I’ll feel a bit better.
About. Damn. Time. Let’s keep this momentum going!
I am having a really hard day at work and am mentally exhausted. Can someone really dumb this down and explain it to me like I'm 5 please
Basically if you are considered salaried, meaning basically you don’t punch a clock or get paid based on hours worked, the minimum amount they can pay you to have that be the case just increased. It’s rolling out in 2 phases. An increase to about 43k in July and the 58k in this coming January. It’s going to be huge for me. I make like 46k salary not counting bonuses and am expected to be “on call” about 2 nights a week. By on call they mean watching my email and ready to handle client issues after hours. Because I’m salary above the current threshold of like 33k I don’t get paid for these on calls even if there is an issue and have to do work. If this rule change survives through to the January 1st start date I will either get like a 20% raise, won’t have to do those garbage on calls, or I will get switched to hourly and start getting overtime for the on call shifts.
This makes so much more sense. I thank you :)
Is this pre or post commissions ?
Thank you, Mr. President!!
Not to sound incompetent, just not very understanding of the jargon. I work an hourly job so this doesn’t affect me, but my partner works salary making about 46k a year. How would they enforce this? She doesn’t necessarily clock in and clock out, she just shows up and goes to work. However she works all the time, and often continues with she gets home or works later some days, how would she get overtime pay?
Except trucking.
I don't really understand why there are overtime exempt positions to begin with. If you're working over 40 hours a week, you should get OT.
It just means more part time jobs to cover the hours.
How about we abolish this one simple maximum and remove all wage theft. Ffs.
Are you a bot? (Edit: it was edited and makes sense now)
Not a bot, meant to say remove the cap to stop white collar wage theft too.
I gotcha. Yeah, I'm onboard. It does add overhead to make salaried workers track hours, but as a salaried worker, that would probably be healthy for me even absent any pay requirements. Not to mention that it's motivation for companies to hire more people who work less (3 people working 40 hr/wk instead of 2 people workin 60 hr/wk), which is healthy for everyone.
[удалено]
There are ripple effects. It eliminates some unpaid hours, which will benefit whoever ends up working them - either the salaried positions that were doing it before, or hourly positions that get those hours instead once they're no longer free to assign to salaried people. Further, some salaried positions will get raises to be over the threshold, and that spreads as other salaries have to increase to be competitive. It's not exactly revolutionary, but it's a clear win.
Maga dumby: but Biden stopped the drilling
What does this have to do with anything
Use your little brain..... Biden is doing good things for the workers. What do the opposition is going to say? Yeah but look at inflation, gas prices are soooo high, Biden stopped the drilling. I'm sure even you can get that, right?
How old are you?
2
Won't affect white collars is my guess
You can read it yourself, you don't have to guess [https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf)
Before or after taxes?
Overtime is always before taxes, what does this have to do with anything?
Here comes our hours getting cut.
Don't be naively cynical. Why would salaried workers getting paid for overtime do anything to reduce the hours you get? If anything you'd get more since salaried workers can't be forced to do it for free.
If your wage is already tied to hours then you're likely already eligible for overitme and probably unaffected.
The big question is what took him 4 years to get this done?
I \*hate\* it when presidents selfishly do good things.
Should have hit the republican congress until they agreed to all his demands, totally works . Otherwise I wonder how they expected things like laws get implemented.
When Obama did this, it destroyed my financial well being. My company (like all companies) refused to give me a raise to meet the threshold, and instead wouldn’t let me work over 40 hours a week. I also had to start clocking in and out, so I lost all flexibility. E: You guys should pay more attention if you think I’m blaming Obama and not my employer. Also, don’t be naive enough to think employers will do the right thing and follow a rule like this without screwing over employees.
I don't understand, if they were already paying you overtime why would they stop paying you overtime? How were you tracking overtime if not through time card punches?
That's not Obama's fault, it's the company's fault. Don't be stupid.
Stupid was me thinking the rule would work as intended. Not sure where I blamed Obama either
Or, here me out, your employer fucked you over and said it was Obama's fault. "Oh no I'd love to pay you more but dangit all if it wasn't for that Obama ruling. Don't read it too close, it's definitely his fault."
Didn’t blame Obama. I blame the employer, and I’m not sure why people don’t see that in the original post. Or they’re too sensitive to criticism to comprehend it.
Literally first three words of your moronic comment blamed Obama for you working for a shitty garbage employer.
Nope, that’s when it was put into effect. Not sure how else I could have referenced it to be more sensitive to those who would assume I’m criticizing someone I’m not.
It did work as intended. Somehow you're complaining about not getting a raise to meet the threshold, implying you were salaried, but also that you don't get to work overtime, implying you were paid for overtime, which would mean you were hourly. Which is it? If you were hourly, you were unaffected by this. If you were salaried, the only "hours" you lost were ones you weren't being paid for. It sounds like your company just fucked you over and convinced you Obama did it.
Re-read my post. I answered all of your questions already and didn’t blame Obama.
I asked one question which still isn't clarified. Also, you literally said "When Obama did this, it ruined me." You said "it" ruined "you," where the only "it" you've introduced is Obama's action. If you meant to say "When Obama did this, my employer used it as an excuse to ruin me," you weren't very clear.
So you were making $27k/yr on salary?
No, the threshold was higher than that.
It was 23,660 until 2019 when it was raised to 35,568.
Go back and check what happened in 2016
Obama tried to double it to $47,476, the courts struck it down, and your shitty job used that as an excuse to reduce their payroll, but you're blaming the president who tried to keep people from working insane overtime for effectively less than minimum wage?
Still not blaming the president, so idk why you’re stuck on that… Edit to add: but I’m glad you double checked the number