Judge Puts Overtime Pay for Millions in Limbo as Republicans Rejoice
'For the time being, workers will continue to work longer hours for less pay thanks to this obstructionist litigation'
A federal judge on Tuesday halted an Obama administration rule that would have expanded overtime pay for millions of workers, a decision that was slammed by employees' rights advocates.
The U.S. Department of Labor rule, which was set to go into effect on December 1, would have made overtime pay available to full-time salaried employees making up to $47,476 a year. It was expected to touch every nearly every sector in the U.S. economy. The threshold for overtime pay was previously set at $23,660, and had been updated once in 40 years--meaning any full-time employees who earned more than $23,600 were not eligible for time-and-a-half when they worked more than 40 hours a week.
Tuesday's decision keeps the rule from being implemented while U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of Texas considers opposing arguments by a number of business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 21 states. Mazzant said the Labor Department had overstepped its authority by raising the threshold so significantly.
With the GOP set to control both chambers of Congress and the White House, the rule faces an uncertain future--but Republicans and corporate interests are already rejoicing.
Marc Freedman, executive director of labor law policy at the Chamber of Commerce, told the New York Times that the judge's language indicates he is against the rule, stating, "We are, assuming that this preliminary injunction holds and there isn't an appeal or some other thing that disrupts it, done with this regulation."
Workers' rights advocates reacted with dismay and outrage. David Levine, CEO and co-founder of the American Sustainable Business Council, mourned the ruling, saying the opponents were "operating from short-sighted, out-moded thinking."
"The employees who will be hurt the most and the economies that will suffer the most are in the American heartland, where wages are already low," Levine said. "When employers pay a fair wage, they benefit from more productive, loyal, and motivated employees. That's good for a business' bottom line and for growing the middle class that our nation's economy depends on. High road businesses understand that better compensation helps build a better work culture."
The Labor Department released a statement which read, "We strongly disagree with the decision by the court, which has the effect of delaying a fair day's pay for a long day's work for millions of hardworking Americans. The department's overtime rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rulemaking process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule."
Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), noted that the rule would have impacted up to 12.5 million workers, citing research by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
"The business trade associations and Republican-led states that filed the litigation in Texas opposing the rules have won today, but will not ultimately prevail in their attempt to take away a long-overdue pay raise for America's workers," she said. "Unfortunately, for the time being, workers will continue to work longer hours for less pay thanks to this obstructionist litigation."
EPI's Ross Eisenbrey said, "This is an extreme and unsupportable decision and is a clear overreach by the court. For 78 years the Department of Labor has used salary as well as duties to determine overtime eligibility. Congress has amended the Fair Labor Standards Act many times and has never objected to the salary test."
"The law is clear on this," Eisenbrey said. "The District Court's ruling is wrong. It is also a disappointment to millions of workers who are forced to work long hours with no extra compensation, and is a blow to those Americans who care deeply about raising wages and lessening inequality."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A federal judge on Tuesday halted an Obama administration rule that would have expanded overtime pay for millions of workers, a decision that was slammed by employees' rights advocates.
The U.S. Department of Labor rule, which was set to go into effect on December 1, would have made overtime pay available to full-time salaried employees making up to $47,476 a year. It was expected to touch every nearly every sector in the U.S. economy. The threshold for overtime pay was previously set at $23,660, and had been updated once in 40 years--meaning any full-time employees who earned more than $23,600 were not eligible for time-and-a-half when they worked more than 40 hours a week.
Tuesday's decision keeps the rule from being implemented while U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of Texas considers opposing arguments by a number of business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 21 states. Mazzant said the Labor Department had overstepped its authority by raising the threshold so significantly.
With the GOP set to control both chambers of Congress and the White House, the rule faces an uncertain future--but Republicans and corporate interests are already rejoicing.
Marc Freedman, executive director of labor law policy at the Chamber of Commerce, told the New York Times that the judge's language indicates he is against the rule, stating, "We are, assuming that this preliminary injunction holds and there isn't an appeal or some other thing that disrupts it, done with this regulation."
Workers' rights advocates reacted with dismay and outrage. David Levine, CEO and co-founder of the American Sustainable Business Council, mourned the ruling, saying the opponents were "operating from short-sighted, out-moded thinking."
"The employees who will be hurt the most and the economies that will suffer the most are in the American heartland, where wages are already low," Levine said. "When employers pay a fair wage, they benefit from more productive, loyal, and motivated employees. That's good for a business' bottom line and for growing the middle class that our nation's economy depends on. High road businesses understand that better compensation helps build a better work culture."
The Labor Department released a statement which read, "We strongly disagree with the decision by the court, which has the effect of delaying a fair day's pay for a long day's work for millions of hardworking Americans. The department's overtime rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rulemaking process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule."
Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), noted that the rule would have impacted up to 12.5 million workers, citing research by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
"The business trade associations and Republican-led states that filed the litigation in Texas opposing the rules have won today, but will not ultimately prevail in their attempt to take away a long-overdue pay raise for America's workers," she said. "Unfortunately, for the time being, workers will continue to work longer hours for less pay thanks to this obstructionist litigation."
EPI's Ross Eisenbrey said, "This is an extreme and unsupportable decision and is a clear overreach by the court. For 78 years the Department of Labor has used salary as well as duties to determine overtime eligibility. Congress has amended the Fair Labor Standards Act many times and has never objected to the salary test."
"The law is clear on this," Eisenbrey said. "The District Court's ruling is wrong. It is also a disappointment to millions of workers who are forced to work long hours with no extra compensation, and is a blow to those Americans who care deeply about raising wages and lessening inequality."
A federal judge on Tuesday halted an Obama administration rule that would have expanded overtime pay for millions of workers, a decision that was slammed by employees' rights advocates.
The U.S. Department of Labor rule, which was set to go into effect on December 1, would have made overtime pay available to full-time salaried employees making up to $47,476 a year. It was expected to touch every nearly every sector in the U.S. economy. The threshold for overtime pay was previously set at $23,660, and had been updated once in 40 years--meaning any full-time employees who earned more than $23,600 were not eligible for time-and-a-half when they worked more than 40 hours a week.
Tuesday's decision keeps the rule from being implemented while U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of Texas considers opposing arguments by a number of business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 21 states. Mazzant said the Labor Department had overstepped its authority by raising the threshold so significantly.
With the GOP set to control both chambers of Congress and the White House, the rule faces an uncertain future--but Republicans and corporate interests are already rejoicing.
Marc Freedman, executive director of labor law policy at the Chamber of Commerce, told the New York Times that the judge's language indicates he is against the rule, stating, "We are, assuming that this preliminary injunction holds and there isn't an appeal or some other thing that disrupts it, done with this regulation."
Workers' rights advocates reacted with dismay and outrage. David Levine, CEO and co-founder of the American Sustainable Business Council, mourned the ruling, saying the opponents were "operating from short-sighted, out-moded thinking."
"The employees who will be hurt the most and the economies that will suffer the most are in the American heartland, where wages are already low," Levine said. "When employers pay a fair wage, they benefit from more productive, loyal, and motivated employees. That's good for a business' bottom line and for growing the middle class that our nation's economy depends on. High road businesses understand that better compensation helps build a better work culture."
The Labor Department released a statement which read, "We strongly disagree with the decision by the court, which has the effect of delaying a fair day's pay for a long day's work for millions of hardworking Americans. The department's overtime rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rulemaking process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule."
Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), noted that the rule would have impacted up to 12.5 million workers, citing research by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
"The business trade associations and Republican-led states that filed the litigation in Texas opposing the rules have won today, but will not ultimately prevail in their attempt to take away a long-overdue pay raise for America's workers," she said. "Unfortunately, for the time being, workers will continue to work longer hours for less pay thanks to this obstructionist litigation."
EPI's Ross Eisenbrey said, "This is an extreme and unsupportable decision and is a clear overreach by the court. For 78 years the Department of Labor has used salary as well as duties to determine overtime eligibility. Congress has amended the Fair Labor Standards Act many times and has never objected to the salary test."
"The law is clear on this," Eisenbrey said. "The District Court's ruling is wrong. It is also a disappointment to millions of workers who are forced to work long hours with no extra compensation, and is a blow to those Americans who care deeply about raising wages and lessening inequality."