Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

I've always read "getting my work done" as similar to "pulling my own weight" or "doing my fair share." They're not supposed to be read literally, only to convey an overall sentiment.

When I managed my team, work was never assigned to an individual. It was assigned to the team and the team took responsibility for it. Individuals accepted responsibility for pieces of work as they completed prior work. If an individual wasn't contributing enough, either the team's productivity would suffer or other members of the team would step up to fill in the gap. If that that lack of contribution became consistent, I'd notice, either through poor team performance or conversations with disgruntled team members who were covering.

A lot of it was handled by feel and when a member of my team felt like he was accomplishing enough to keep the team performing well, s/he absolutely had the discretion to leave early. The key is that when the team is responsible, people are motivated very differently from when an individual is responsible. Your team members are often your friends whereas you might have a more combative relationship with your manager. No one wants to be the one that lets the team down. And, similarly, if a team is being pushed too hard, everyone will feel it and everyone can push back together. This makes it really easy to see, as a manager, when you're asking too much of people.

I'd say if you're looking for a healthy work environment, look for ones that emphasize team accountability over individual accountability and then try to find a team where everyone respects each other. That team is, more often than not, going to do well and you'll share in that success. If you have a slump, someone will cover for you. If someone else does and you feel up to it, you can go above and beyond for a bit. It's a lot easier to give that extra effort when you're doing well than it is when you're struggling.

The judge was not ruling on the substance of the overtime rule change, only whether the executive branch had the authority to make the rule change.

The judge determined that the overtime rule, which was created by the legislative branch, did not give the executive branch the authority to change the rule in the way the Labor dept. tried to.

The overtime law gives the Department of Labor the authority to define who is exempt. The judge was the one that made up law by inventing a limit to the authority that congress granted to the Department of Labor.

Here is a source for the judge's order: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Overtime_-...

I am not a lawyer, so I urge people to read the text and decide for themselves. Here's my analysis:

In order to issue a preliminary injuction, the plaintiffs must present a "prima facie" case, essentially, a demonstration that they can win the case under the assumption that all their factual claims are true. First the plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Then they must show they would suffer "irreparable harm", necessitating the injunction. The court must then consider a "balance of hardships" - since in a preliminary injunction, both sides can claim "injury", the court must "consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief". Further, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a "public interest" in the injunction.

For the "likelihood of success on the merits", the judge analysed each of the arguments:

1. Plaintiffs argue that the FLSA does not apply to the States; the judge decides it does, applying the "Garcia" analysis from the Supreme Court.

2. Plaintiffs argue that Chevron deference does not apply for this case, judge agrees. Chevron deference is a legal standard roughly saying that in the case of an ambiguous law, the Court should defer to the interpretation of the government body authorized to apply the law(as they are presumed experts in the field), as long as the interpretation does not contradict the evident intentions of the law.

3. Plaintiffs argue that the automatic update mechanism of the Final Rule violates the APA. The judge does not analyse this, using his previous analysis of Chevron deference to conclude that the Final Rule is unlawful and that 3) does not need to be settled.

The rest of the analysis("irreparable harm" etc) from the judge is not as long so I don't feel it's worth summarizing in any way.

I don't find the judge "making up" any law in their analysis - can you please be more specific which part of his analysis you disagree with?