Reply With Quote
I wanted $75 or even $100K, but doubling it to $47,476 is a good first step.
Will Hillary or Bernie double it again? Trump sure won't
The administration will accomplish that by raising what’s known as the overtime salary threshold. Nearly all workers earning salaries beneath that threshold are en led to time-and-a-half pay whenever they work more than 40 hours in a week.
The current threshold is just $23,660. The White House will be doubling that number, to $47,476, guaranteeing overtime rights for salaried workers earning less than that. The Labor Department will now update the threshold every three years to make sure it keeps pace with inflation.
The White House estimates that the change will bring overtime rights to 4.2 million workers who are currently excluded. It will also clarify eligibility for another 8.9 million workers who may or may not have overtime protections under the current rules, officials said.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
I wanted $75 or even $100K, but doubling it to $47,476 is a good first step.
Will Hillary or Bernie double it again? Trump sure won't
For what it's worth, they aren't necessarily getting a raise. They specifically put language in there where their hourly pay plus overtime could still be equal to or less than their current salary now.
Obama Overtime Plan Won’t Hurt Businesses, Executives Admit
BUSINESS INTEREST GROUPS and their allies engaged in hyperbolic rhetoric about the supposed negative impact of overtime regulations before they were announced last week. By changing a salary threshold, the new rules will make millions of workers newly eligible to be paid for their overtime hours.
“Businesses will be forced to look for cuts in the face of such massive costs,” Compe ive Enterprise Ins ute policy analyst Trey Kovacs predicted. Right-wing economics analyst Michael Carr even worried that the overtime rules could help start another recession.
House Speaker Paul Ryan warned that they would “cause people to lose their livelihoods.”
“You just can’t do this!” said a former McDonald’s CEO.
But in investor calls over the past week, executives at
some leading American retailers quietly admitted that the rule will only have a modest impact on their bottom lines, if any at all.
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/24/...ule-overblown/
Repugs exposed again for their FUD and LIES.
Well Duh....Of course it won't affect retailers much.
Thats because retailers/fast food businesses won't let most employees get over 29 hours because of Obamacare
No, Obamacare is not reducing employees' hours
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/25/news/economy/obamacare-employees-hours/
boutons, you link isn't linkable.
Am I reading this 2015 article right?:
Obamacare mandates that companies offer coverage to all employees who work more than 30 hours a week. Critics said this rule would prompt employers to reduce workers' schedules to avoid the mandate, which kicked in for large employers this year and will take effect for those firms with 50 to 99 employees next year. (Companies with fewer than 50 workers are exempt.)
Why then are they showing 2013 and 2014 numbers if the mandate hadn't kicked in yet?
I can tell you that every single intern at my dd's place of internship last year only worked 28 hours a week.
And the last sentence of the article: Others will limit their hours so they can keep their eligibility for subsidies and Medicaid.
do you know how to copy/paste?
Sure employers of low-level people SCREW them all the time, with poverty wages, no benefits, ty, dead-end jobs, ty bosses, while depending on taxpayers to make their employees' incomes liveable. That's not Obamacare's fault.
Well, obviously I did. I just thought you'd want to know.
You didn't address your article's misleading le and its using data from years when that Obamacare mandate hadn't even been implemented yet.
boutons, you link isn't linkable.
Am I reading this 2015 article right?:
Obamacare mandates that companies offer coverage to all employees who work more than 30 hours a week. Critics said this rule would prompt employers to reduce workers' schedules to avoid the mandate, which kicked in for large employers this year and will take effect for those firms with 50 to 99 employees next year. (Companies with fewer than 50 workers are exempt.)
Why then are they showing 2013 and 2014 numbers if the mandate hadn't kicked in yet?
I can tell you that every single intern at my dd's place of internship last year only worked 28 hours a week.
And the last sentence of the article: Others will limit their hours so they can keep their eligibility for subsidies and Medicaid.
Isn't CC's article from a British publication (the date is written in British format)? Much less egregious than the American CNN. CC's is more quote oriented - not hard data with percentages like CNN's.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
