What has Trump said about this, if anything in the past while running? I mean it seems stupid to allow the ruling to go into effect if he’ll reverse it in two months.
As for gradually raising it, I don’t see the point, you might as well bite the bullet and do it now. You’re only delaying the inevitable. It’s like taking till 2020 to get to $15 minimum wage. Well by then inflation will have eroded much of it to the point where it needs to go back up.
Gradually raising it makes it much easier for employers to adjust, same as MW. Jumping it up by over double has caused quite a bit of problems, not just for employers, but for salaried employees, who were facing a smaller paycheck if they were to go to hourly.
I don’t see how. Give them enough notice, and one large change is actually easier than a bunch of small changes over a length of time.
The real problem employers have is stability. They can’t plan their business if laws keep changing all the time. So give employers a few years’ notice, tie the rates to inflation, and then forget about it.
But then Congress wouldn’t have a football to pass around every election year to make people forget about real issues.
It seems to me that in this discussion, two critical issues are in play but the distinctions are getting blurred?
What policy should Congress mandate?
In accord with Congress’ intentions, what rules should the DoL make?
Right now, the major issue is that Congress did not change the policy but the DoL changed the rules anyway.
Given enough notice, maybe. This notice was given in May. Six months is a bit short notice for that big a change.
Sure, bumping it up by the same amount all at once in two or three years may be the same or better than gradually putting it up over that time, but suddenly doubling it over the course of six months put many people, both employers and employees, in a bit of a jam.
If congress’s intention by passing minimum wage is to ensure that everyone gets paid at least 7.25 for every hour worked, then coming up with guidelines to ensure that everyone is in fact paid that amount for every hour worked would be within their intention. As there are fast food “managers” out there making 23k and working 80 hours a week, that is an issue to be addressed.
That said, there may have been better ways to address the issue than raising the exempt salary.
But that wasn’t Congress’ intention, I don’t think. Congress’ intention was that some workers must be paid minimum wage, but not all workers. Workers employed by certain seasonal and recreational establishments, said Congress, don’t qualify. Farmworkers employed on small farms don’t, either.
And most relevant for this discussion: executive, administrative, and professional and employees don’t.
If it’s an issue to be addressed, then there are two avenues: perhaps fast food managers are not truly “executives,” and the DoL needs to sue the fast food places to force them to recognize this fact. The definitions are to be strictly construed against the employer, after all, and if a worker mixes duties executive and non-executive duties in a week, he is entitled to the benefit. This is something that can be done by enforcing the existing rule, in other words.
The other avenue is that it’s possible these are truly workers doing executive tasks at 23k per annum, working 80 hours a week. And to remedy this, Congress needs to amend the FLSA, because right now, Congress has said they aren’t covered.
Is that the major issue? FSLA doesn’t mention the current salary threshold AFAICT. Let alone the new one. So either some rulemaking is allowed and there’s just an issue with how this one was made. Or they’re both wrong.
Yes, that’s the major issue.
And yes, some rulemaking is allowed. Rulemaking is how federal agencies shape and enforce federal law.
In this case, there is an existing rule that applies the FLSA, and it includes a three-part test to determine if an employee is truly an executive, administrative, or professional worker.
The new rule essentially replaces that test with a single salary test: in other words, if you don’t make at least $47,000 per year, regardless of what your duties are, you cannot qualify as an executive, administrative, or professional.
That is not consistent with “the major issue is that Congress did not change the policy but the DoL changed the rules anyway.” In fact, you wrote just a few weeks ago that they’re allowed to change the threshold.
So we still don’t have an answer for what’s going on.
You may not.
I certainly do.
You certainly haven’t shared it in this thread. Because you have written elsewhere that it’s OK for DOL to change the rules, which contradicts your posts in this thread:
So which is it?
But there was always a salary test and the new rule still has a duties test. And for most jobs you have to meet both to be exempt. The difference is that the salary test used to be $455 a week ($23,660 a year). So under the old rule, if you didn’t make at least $455 a week, no matter what your duties were, you didn’t qualify as executive, administrative, or professional. There are some professions where the salary test didn’t apply under the current rule - outside sales, those practicing law or medicine and teacher. And that will still exist under the new rule - teachers being paid under 47,000 will still be exempt and so will doctors and lawyers and outside sales people.
Remind me where I said that DoL could not change the rules.
“The major issue is that Congress did not change the policy but the DoL changed the rules anyway.” Is DOL allowed to change the rules under the latest iteration of of FLSA without Congress changing the policy or not? If not, fine. If yes, then the major issue is not that DOL changed the rules, but how or to what. That’s what I’m trying to learn. I’m not a fan of the proposed rule change but I don’t understand why it’s not allowed when the previous rule, where the pay floor is not spelled out in FLSA, is allowed.
The extant rule has a low salary ceiling, low enough that DoL has previously said, in effect, “Yes: those who earn less than $23,000 can be at least presumed to not genuinely be an executive, administrative, or professional employees.”
Now DoL is saying, “No, actually, it’s $47,000 per year, and we didn’t do any study or comparison of national wages to decide this.”
DoL cannot credibly claim that the law used to mean $23K and now means $47K even though the legislative language remains identical.
Sure it can. What year was the $23k rule set? How much is $23k in that year worth in 2016 dollars? One could argue that not adjusting the original amount into current monetary units would be failing to follow the legislative intent.
Roughly 30K. $28,200.00 (using the unskilled wage) or $30,500.00 (using production worker compensation).
Yeah it’s not enough for inflation to do much
Anyone know which interest groups are pushing for this rule change?