Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#61

Post by Gustomaximus »

meddlepal wrote: post #30
Gustomaximus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand it for higher earners. You are well compensated, typically better conditions and have employment options should the enviroment become toxic. For lower pays absolutely. If an employers agrees to X contracted hours/rate and then demands X+ hours because they know you cant say no, this is essentially theft. And to not pass this as rule essentially mandates it as OK. I hope this gets sorted. I suspect th…

It's a federal judge. There isn't much career progression beyond that because they're appointed for life. So, no, it won't follow them. This is also why we have lifetime appointments so judge's make legally correct rulings rather than politically appealing ones.

> There isn't much career progression beyond that because they're appointed for life.

Progression: Supreme court judge. Chief justice. Maybe not many steps but huge ones. Also it would follow them as for both their remaining tenure and legacy, something they would be distinctly aware of and care about.

> This is also why we have lifetime appointments so judge's make legally correct rulings rather than politically appealing one

That's the theory but there is a reason each side wants to be in power during a supreme court position change. It is because political views shift their interpretation of the law.

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#62

Post by syshum »

vidarh wrote: post #14
wtvanhest wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses pay for the overtime, but not at 150% of the base rate.

People covered by these exemptions are often not paid overtime at all, as the Fair Labor Standards Act does not require any overtime pay if you fall under the exemptions. These exemptions are meant to cover people in certain job roles where output is measured by work delivered, not hours spent, and where the person has independent responsibility for controlling their working hours to certain extent and were overtime…

>>>>These exemptions are meant to cover people in certain job roles where output is measured by work delivered, not hours spent, and where the person has independent responsibility for controlling their working hours to certain extent and were overtime as such is in theory voluntary.

While that is the stated reason, if you actually read the law it becomes clear that these exemptions are meant to cover people in certain job roles where the lobbyist paid congress the correct amount of money to get their preferred job roles exempted

>>>>It's worth noting that this change also follows a change in 2004 that went the other way

Yes and many (myself included) are wondering why the 2004 Rules in favor of business are with in the scope of DOL power, but the 2016 rules are not.

Legally speaking if the 2016 rules are not valid than neither are the 2004 rules

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#63

Post by Pxtl »

maverick_iceman wrote: post #40
Pxtl wrote: post #3

People keep talking about how Trump's election was about winning the white working class. We'll see how interested he is in their right to fair wages.

Why bring Trump at all in the discussion when a federal judge has blocked Obama's initiative?

The article mentioned that Trump wanted to get rid of this legislation.

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#64

Post by oddlyaromatic »

cowl wrote: post #52
thinkmassive wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can understand it for higher earners What's the cutoff that determines when someone is classified as a higher earner?

There should be no cutoff. it's either paid for all (as it should be) or for none. How can you say that some people have less rights because they earn more?

You got a good long answer, but more simply: An expected level of occasional 40+ hour weeks is often baked into to the salary at a higher level. When I switched to a salaried manager position, my new rate of pay was better than my old hourly, including the overtime I used to work. Now I know the check that will come every two weeks is the same, if I can do my work in under 40 hours nobody cares. It is much better for me to focus on my job and not worry about the exact number of hours I work.

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#65

Post by hga »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #13

This is shit. The lower limit for salary hasn't changed for years, and has not tracked inflation. As a post-doc this would have probably really bummed me out if it wasn't for the fact my union had already signed a new contract with the university for new pay raises based on the new Obama administration rules. Yay union.

You're effectively saying "[The rule of law] is shit", which as the article notes, might also result in the new Trump administration refusing to defend this administrative action (which would be legitimate unlike the cases where the executive of a government refuses to defend a law passed by the legislature in front of the court system (just to lay out our general pattern of 3-4 branches of government (4 when you count the "administrative state"))).

Or more simply, the ends do not justify the means, even if, as you point out and I agree in principle, the ends in this case are potentially good.

The prospect of Trump in power in what's arguably no longer a republic run under the Rule of Law has gotten a lot of people to reconsider their position on this (and I share a concern, despite or perhaps even more because I voted for him), and I'll close with the classic Man of All Seasons quote:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#66

Post by hga »

oddlyaromatic wrote: post #64
cowl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be no cutoff. it's either paid for all (as it should be) or for none. How can you say that some people have less rights because they earn more?

You got a good long answer, but more simply: An expected level of occasional 40+ hour weeks is often baked into to the salary at a higher level. When I switched to a salaried manager position, my new rate of pay was better than my old hourly, including the overtime I used to work. Now I know the check that will come every two weeks is the same, if I can do my work in under 40 hours nobody cares. It is much better for…

And having been exempt salaried but working in D.C. for a dozen years where so much is done by government accounting rules, it's a total pain in the posterior to make sure your Official worked hours add up to exactly 40. One of the few nice things about working for Lucent in its dreadful calendar year 2001 was that I could just focus on getting the job done

The only time I ever liked doing that was when it was a tool to keep a company owner from cheating the salesmen by charging them too much for the labor we put into building the systems we'd together, almost always, sold to someone (and that company eventually died, you can't keep cheating all your salaried employees and expect to survive, we all walked away with 4-5 figures of bonuses or commissions formally owed to us).

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#67

Post by sethrin »

hga wrote: post #65
SubiculumCode wrote: post #13

This is shit. The lower limit for salary hasn't changed for years, and has not tracked inflation. As a post-doc this would have probably really bummed me out if it wasn't for the fact my union had already signed a new contract with the university for new pay raises based on the new Obama administration rules. Yay union.

You're effectively saying " [The rule of law] is shit ", which as the article notes, might also result in the new Trump administration refusing to defend this administrative action (which would be legitimate unlike the cases where the executive of a government refuses to defend a law passed by the legislature in front of the court system (just to lay out our general pattern of 3-4 branches of government (4 when you c…

No, that would be a strawman argument. Whatever legal principles are at stake here do not rise to a repudiation of law itself.

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#68

Post by hga »

sethrin wrote: post #67
hga wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're effectively saying " [The rule of law] is shit ", which as the article notes, might also result in the new Trump administration refusing to defend this administrative action (which would be legitimate unlike the cases where the executive of a government refuses to defend a law passed by the legislature in front of the court system (just to lay out our general pattern of 3-4 branches of government (4 when you c…

No, that would be a strawman argument. Whatever legal principles are at stake here do not rise to a repudiation of law itself.

Well, I perceive that SubiculumCode is among other things arguing that this legal procedural issue, and the possibility that the administrative rule making did not follow the law, something we ought to accept as legit given that Obama nominated the judge and the hurdle to get a preliminary injunction is very high, as Sacho abily discusses in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13028904, "is shit".

I certainly could have gotten his intent wrong, but for now his words have to stand as written, and the issue of the Rule of Law is both entirely relevant to this case and to current events in the US.

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#69

Post by mimimimi »

sethrin wrote: post #67
hga wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're effectively saying " [The rule of law] is shit ", which as the article notes, might also result in the new Trump administration refusing to defend this administrative action (which would be legitimate unlike the cases where the executive of a government refuses to defend a law passed by the legislature in front of the court system (just to lay out our general pattern of 3-4 branches of government (4 when you c…

No, that would be a strawman argument. Whatever legal principles are at stake here do not rise to a repudiation of law itself.

All I heard was strawman and no actual arguments. Even I can do that.

Re: Judge blocks Obama overtime rule, putting it in jeopardy

#70

Post by rbanffy »

onchidiacea wrote: post #2

I don't know how businesses get away without paying overtime. My life is finite. My work hours are finite. If you want more hours out of me, you pay for them.

It only works when you are not an easily replaceable commodity. Unless your extra more expensive hours are something your employer can't readily find on the market, it'd trivial to acquire more hours from someone else for a cheaper rate.
Post reply on HN