Paul Ryan Thinks Overtime Pay Is Actually—Wait for It—Bad for Workers

[n2doc]

BY CHARLES P. PIERCE

Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin and first runner-up in our most recent vice-presidential pageant, is doing his Hamlet thing about his party's presumptive presidential nominee. He's making sure that his suckfish in the elite political media know how deeply his vast conscience is torn over the decision, and that it's keeping him from his newfound embassy to the nation's poor and its struggling middle class.

No kidding. Some people actually buy this swill.

Then, on Wednesday, as Slate informs us, the administration announced that four million people will be getting a raise.

Under the new Department of Labor rules, salaried employees earning less than $47,476 annually will automatically receive overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week, double the current $23,660 ceiling. Administration officials estimate that more than 4 million workers will be impacted by the change, which will increase their pay by an estimated $12 billion over the next decade. "It is based on a simple proposition. If you work overtime, you should actually get paid for working overtime," Vice President Joe Biden said on a press call.

Huzzah, right? A break for the poor and the struggling middle class. Paul Ryan no longer needs to fight this fight alone. And what did the man of the people say to ABC News about this announcement?

"This regulation hurts the very people it alleges to help. Who is hurt most? Students, non-profit employees, and people starting a new career," Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said in a statement today. "By mandating overtime pay at a much higher salary threshold, many small businesses and non-profits will simply be unable to afford skilled workers and be forced to eliminate salaried positions, complete with benefits, altogether. For the sake of his own political legacy, President Obama is rushing through regulations—like the overtime rule—that will cause people to lose their livelihoods. We are committed to fighting this rule and the many others that would be an absolute disaster for our economy," Ryan added.

Biggest. Fake. Ever.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/amp45035/paul-ryan-overtime-pay/

[Egnever]

1. These people all make the same mistake

they assume that cost of business lives in a vacuum. As if when making popcorn if the price of corn goes up all the popcorn makers go out of business. Labor is no different than corn (other than it is a person and not a thing) if the cost of labor goes up for one business it goes up for everyone and the price of the product goes up to reflect the increased cost. The people they are competing against all have the same labor increase.

If you can't afford the labor then you need to rethink your pricing.

[Shandris]

2. As I know four salaried employees who would be directly affected by this...

....and what the effect will be, I can assure you...most of them won't see pay increases. They'll see hours dropped. Only one will (and I actually put it at 'might', and that's only because he's in a rare position of having been begged to stay as there was no replacement for him, a situation they no doubt rectified REAL fast afterwards, quietly).

In many fast foods -- at least around here -- for instance, there are 4 managers. 1 store/gm, one assistant (sometimes two, but that's been years since I last saw that), and two shifts. Their hours are 60, 50, 38, 38. No crew member gets above 28 (you only get one guess why).

Now, if you think this company will pay double the salary for 20 hours for the gm and 10 for the assistant instead of hiring one more shift at 30 and a lower pay bracket, you're on some really good medicines. These people wouldn't pay out $100 to get a hole repaired in the sidewalk and made workers do it with patch "cement". They make their own employees do the frickin remodelling, including construction (outside of regulated construction, like with vehicles and all, of course. Oh, they follow the laws to the letter.).

Now, that's not the real reason Ryan wants it to die. But for those curious, that will be the effect around here. Thankfully it won't impact me directly.

Cue up the "That's a RW talking point!" brigade, as if words have a 'wing'.

[dgauss]

5. I honestly don't get your point.

It seems you are saying that those managers working overtime would have their hours cut back and an additional employee would be hired. So instead of those people working 60, 50 hrs etc, they would be working 40 hours, making the same amount as before, and one new person would be hired to make up the hours. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Shandris]

7. No, you've drawn it together, except that the point of the law is to 'increase their pay'.

It doesn't, which is my point. At BEST, they break even and work less. I'm happy they're working less so long as they are, but that isn't the point of the law. The law doesn't even achieve a fraction of it's goal.

In fact, I'm mystified as to who this thing is supposed to be FOR, as any low-salary high-hour position will do the exact same unless states have specific laws to prevent it.

From the OP: "Administration officials estimate that more than 4 million workers will be impacted by the change, which will increase their pay by an estimated $12 billion over the next decade." Yes, it will certainly impact most of them. It won't do so by increasing their pay, it will do so by lowering their overtime.

And this is before one considers that many salaries are negotiated as 'high' as they are (using the term in a relative manner, not like 'top 5%' or some tripe) because of the assumption of overtime. It's entirely possible that many of these people might receive pay CUTS as a result. But that is one that's more of a lurking shadow that I just thought of, and I doubt that will happen TOO much because the backlash would probably crucify the companies involved.

Maybe.

CLARITY EDIT: In case it isn't clear, I'm not in any way saying the law HURTS workers directly. I certainly am not siding with Ryan, who is less human than my ferrets are. I'm simply pointing out the actual effects the law will have compared to its 'Mission Statement'.

[dgauss]

10. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I think you have a point that the legislation won't increase pay as much as they say. It seems to be a theoretical number that assumes employees would continue to work the same hours, even though that doesn't make business sense. Most likely businesses will adjust to avoid paying employees more when they can just hire more people to maintain the same total hours worked without incurring overtime costs.

It will still cost a business more to hire a new employee. They are no longer getting free labor past 40 hours, but it will be cheaper for them to hire someone new to work at a standard rate than to pay overtime to current employees.

So in that scenario it still seems kind of like a win/win. Current employees aren't overworked and someone new gets hired. The one potential downside, from the business point of view, is that it will cost more. The effect of that I suppose is arguable.

[Ilsa]

13. It's not just about laborers getting better paychecks,

But also about not having to work an extra 10 hours a week for the same pay. The change motivates additional hiring to avoid OT.

[liberal N proud]

3. The GOP sells this bull shit all the time

When I was younger and working a non-exempt salary position, we got paid overtime for anything over 40 hrs. The guy with the most seniority in the group would not work overtime because he might owe more in taxes. He was a Republican.

Man I was young and hungry, I grabbed every extra hour that I could.

[packman]

4. How many times have we heard that - "This regulation hurts the very people it alleges to help"

40 hr. week
Min. wages
Safety regulations
Environmental guidelines
etc., etc.

[Igel]

8. It hurts some, it helps some.

Some only see one part of that sentence.

I guess I was in Calif. when they changed overtime pay requirements and immediately the organizations that employed them put strict overtime limits in place. The nurses and some other hospital workers went ballistic.

Yes, they worked 60 hours a week, and got straight time for 60 hours a week (this part of the equation is missed--they weren't making the same pay for 60 hours as for 50 or 40). Suddenly they were going to get paid time and a half for those additional 20 hours a week. Woo-hoo, those in charge of the new regulation said.

But immediately it was cheaper to hire additional nurses. More people got jobs. But the nurses that had jobs to start with got a hefty pay cut. Those who were the main breadwinners in their family had two choices: Take the pay cut and the additional time or find a second job.

Yes, they had to train those who were being hired to partially replace them.

Others get helped. I have nothing but anecdotes when it come to the proportion of those hurt to those helped. I suspect that's largely the state of the research.

[Cresent City Kid]

14. Also "forces" business to act a certain way

The only "force" in business is the bottom line. They could offset the costs of everything you mentioned by cutting ceo pay, but they choose to keep that at an astronomical discrepancy, they are not "forced" to cut hours or positions.

[malaise]

6. Biggesg. Fake. Ever

Ditto - I detest that creep

[smirkymonkey]

9. I so hate that little fucker.

can't even say what I would like to do to him.

[Initech]

11. Worst speaker ever???

[Kingofalldems]

12. He gets that nonsense from Heritage I bet.

[Justice]

15. He has worked in government his entire career essentially - has no clue what is good for private

companies. Completely disconnected.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

16. K&R it's surrealistic