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

81–90 of 98 posts

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

#81

Post by matt_wulfeck »

ubernostrum wrote: post #58
inthewoods wrote: post #23

Interesting unintended consequences with this - my sister-in-law had her job hours radically shifted to deal with this rule - and not in a good way that she appreciated.

On election day Santa Clara county approved Measure E, which requires any business above a certain number of employees to offer additional work hours to existing part-time employees before hiring more part-time employees. The idea being to make it illegal for a company to just keep hiring more and more part-timers to avoid ever giving someone enough hours to become full-time. I suspect if the overtime rule sticks aro…

Sweet more laws. Maybe when we finally get enough laws we'll become a just and kind society.

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

#82

Post by mcguire »

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…

"You're effectively saying "[The rule of law] is shit", ..."

That is too much of a reach. There's a considerable distance between criticism of a law (or the lack of one) and of the rule of law.

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

#83

Post by matt_wulfeck »

llukas wrote: post #49
hyperliner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not the role of the judiciary to define what is just of unjust: they just need to make a ruling based on the law. There is really no difference if someone is paid $20k or $90k: you always must discount that rate if you are not an hourly employee. It is not theft: it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it. Also, the ruling is only being postponed: --- “Due to the approaching effective date o…

"it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it." Or you're free to starve, right?

Yes you are free to starve if you choose so and keeping everyone fed is not the prerogative of a small business. That reality may sound harsh and unfair to you but it doesn't make it untrue.

Either way my experience with crappy jobs suggest that it's hard to work more hours because of overtime pay rules. You have to simply work two jobs, which is what many people at places like McDonalds do to make ends meet. All of these rules have unintended side effects.

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

#85

Post by vinceguidry »

coldtea wrote: post #56
hyperliner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not the role of the judiciary to define what is just of unjust: they just need to make a ruling based on the law. There is really no difference if someone is paid $20k or $90k: you always must discount that rate if you are not an hourly employee. It is not theft: it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it. Also, the ruling is only being postponed: --- “Due to the approaching effective date o…

> It is not theft: it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it. That's a strange view of how the world works. But of course if one has never been forced to take a shitty job because they just have no options, one can hold such a view more easily.

I've had plenty of shitty jobs in my day, it was always a choice for me to take them and I was always glad to have them. I used to pull twelve hour shifts on a production line. Did that job for three weeks to save up to move across the country.

You always have options. You can always make a plan. If the plan fails, you learn from it and make a better one. But I tell you what, I'd rather have a shit job as an option rather than no job as an option.

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

#87

Post by wwweston »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #83
llukas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it." Or you're free to starve, right?

Yes you are free to starve if you choose so and keeping everyone fed is not the prerogative of a small business. That reality may sound harsh and unfair to you but it doesn't make it untrue. Either way my experience with crappy jobs suggest that it's hard to work more hours because of overtime pay rules. You have to simply work two jobs, which is what many people at places like McDonalds do to make ends meet. All of…

> Yes you are free to starve if you choose so and keeping everyone fed is not the prerogative of a small business.

"Keeping everyone fed" is an... interesting transmutation of the point you're responding to, which is more or less about whether businesses have any ethical obligations towards whatever employees they have (not "everyone") regardless of what market conditions will bear, and certainly stops well short of the idea that small businesses must generally solve hunger.

If the job market is poor enough for a given employee that they don't have any other prospects, should that give an employer license to demand more of their time at the same pay rate? Or perhaps any smaller pay rate? Demand they do things which are health hazards? Coerce into doing illegal things? Demand sexual favors?

> Either way my experience with crappy jobs suggest that it's hard to work more hours because of overtime pay rules. You have to simply work two jobs, which is what many people at places like McDonalds do to make ends meet.

I don't think labor operations of a McDonald's have much to do with overtime, since the situation you're describing generally means the workers in question have trouble getting to full time. But yes, it probably does have something to do with employers trying to avoid bearing the cost of full-time employees, along with trying to optimize labor supply to indicated demand by buying smaller slices of worker time and pushing the cost of coordinating that worker's time on to the worker.

> All of these rules have unintended side effects.

Sure, and debating which ones are worthwhile and effective which ones aren't is great. As it turns out, not having many of these rules also has unintended side effects, which we've had a chance to see in action in the past.

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

#88

Post by guelo »

Sacho wrote: post #50
guelo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 meat of the ruling is on pages 12 & 13.

The FLSA says "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity . . . as such terms are defined and delimited from time to time by regulations” is exempt from overtime.

The judge says that the minimum salary rule cannot be used to determine if an employee is exempt, even though the existing rule already uses minimum salary as a criteria. The law itself leaves it completely up to the regulator to define the criteria. So the judge invented a new limit on the regulator's authority that does not exist in the law.

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

#89

Post by guelo »

jeffdavis wrote: post #86

Why is the President making law in the first place? If this law was made by Congress, it would be less susceptible to legal challenge now, or reversal by a future administration.

The law gives the regulator the authority to determine who is exempt from overtime. This is not "making law", it is excersizing authority granted under existing law.

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

#90

Post by guelo »

cowardlydragon wrote: post #84

What does it matter anyway? Trump is coming to town. That was one of the first things he was going to nuke anyway..

Republicans were hoping not to have to repeal the rule after it had already taken effect pissing off millions of workers.
Post reply on HN